scho
Well-known
i assume the panasonic 7-14 will be a m43, no?
Yes, m4/3 mount for the G1, 7-14 f/4 lens, 2009. That should round out a very nice 3 lens kit for the G1 going from 7-200. Add the 20 1/.7 for the nightcrawlers.
back alley
IMAGES
Yes, m4/3 mount for the G1, 7-14 f/4 lens, 2009. That should round out a very nice 3 lens kit for the G1 going from 7-200. Add the 20 1/.7 for the nightcrawlers.
i want them all!
i'm saving my pennies...
back alley
IMAGES
Funny, I remeber when Epson RD1 came out. And the one "issue" that people complained the most was the crop factor. Fact that it's not a full frame. Than M8 came out. Amoung others - same complaint - crop factor. "We want Full Frame" speeches.
Now this camera, -G1 comes out. Even larger crop factor. Not a "true" RF camera, like Rd1 and M8, yet all of a sudden it seems that more people are willing to get one, crop factor is not such a big deal, etc. etc.
So what gives? Is it simply the fact that G1 is cheaper than others? Or true Rf is not really what people wanted anyway, but rather a small camera they can put M-mount lens on?
I'm just trying to understand the excitement about this G1 camera.
for me, i like the g1 on it's own, it's small, easy to use and has a sharp kit lens.
what is exciting is that it can use the m mount lenses (a bonus, if you will) and i can easily afford it.
i would prefer a real rangefinder but that choice, for me, is limited to a used rd1 and i think that the g1 is a better route for now.
joe
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
It seems the G1+M Lenses are only good for taking pictures of things that don't move. HaH
But that's just based on the pictures I've seen.
But that's just based on the pictures I've seen.
cmog, I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps it's the time it takes to focus it in manual mode. I would like to see some people pictures where stuff is happening! 
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
Or at least a picture that doesn't make me go yawn. 
gavinlg
Veteran
Funny, I remeber when Epson RD1 came out. And the one "issue" that people complained the most was the crop factor. Fact that it's not a full frame. Than M8 came out. Amoung others - same complaint - crop factor. "We want Full Frame" speeches.
Now this camera, -G1 comes out. Even larger crop factor. Not a "true" RF camera, like Rd1 and M8, yet all of a sudden it seems that more people are willing to get one, crop factor is not such a big deal, etc. etc.
So what gives? Is it simply the fact that G1 is cheaper than others? Or true Rf is not really what people wanted anyway, but rather a small camera they can put M-mount lens on?
I'm just trying to understand the excitement about this G1 camera.
m4/3rds in it's native mount with it's native lenses has no crop factor. It's already full frame. The lenses are designed to be used on that sensor, thus making it full frame. It has a crop factor when using non native lenses but who cares - when you see the quality of the m4/3rds glass you won't care anymore.
back alley
IMAGES
kit lens, 800 iso

back alley
IMAGES
kit lens, iso 800, directly into the sun

cmogi10
Bodhisattva
Very nice! Thanks for sharing.
I was talking about using an M lens adapted though. All I see there are twigs pots and the works.
I was talking about using an M lens adapted though. All I see there are twigs pots and the works.
back alley
IMAGES
i know, i just felt like posting a pic.
probably should have found a different thread.
probably should have found a different thread.
gavinlg
Veteran
i know, i just felt like posting a pic.
probably should have found a different thread.
Post more if you like, you're furthering my point that the quality of the m4/3rds lenses is good enough to negate the need for just about anything else. It's nice to experiment of course with older glass but it won't be of the same optical quality.
back alley
IMAGES
Post more if you like, you're furthering my point that the quality of the m4/3rds lenses is good enough to negate the need for just about anything else. It's nice to experiment of course with older glass but it won't be of the same optical quality.
i agree, there is no NEED for lenses other than those designed for the g1 - i just think it will be a hoot to play with others though.
joe
gdi
Veteran
Your shots look great Joe.
But I have seen some really funky looking OOF backgrounds from that longer zoom (posted over on getdpi). The consensus was that it was atmospheric turbulence, but I have shot a ton of 400+ mm on other camera and never seen anything close to that effect ( and these were winter street shots).
It will be interesting to see what you think of that lens.
But I have seen some really funky looking OOF backgrounds from that longer zoom (posted over on getdpi). The consensus was that it was atmospheric turbulence, but I have shot a ton of 400+ mm on other camera and never seen anything close to that effect ( and these were winter street shots).
It will be interesting to see what you think of that lens.
back alley
IMAGES
i saw those shots also and can't say for sure what it is...but i have seen that effect in person right here in the frozen north. in winter if i take my hat off the steam just rises.
lord knows when my lens will show up, prodigital lost the paperwork and they aren't even sure if they ever sent the lens.
lord knows when my lens will show up, prodigital lost the paperwork and they aren't even sure if they ever sent the lens.
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
i agree, there is no NEED for lenses other than those designed for the g1 - i just think it will be a hoot to play with others though.
joe
That's what I figure. I've seen some really cool results from a real neat leap in technology. Just because it's not a tool that would fit in my kit or work for my shooting doesn't mean it's not capable of great results.
I was more skeptical of the people buying the G1 as a platform for adapted M lenses.
gdi
Veteran
i saw those shots also and can't say for sure what it is...but i have seen that effect in person right here in the frozen north. in winter if i take my hat off the steam just rises.
lord knows when my lens will show up, prodigital lost the paperwork and they aren't even sure if they ever sent the lens.
Yes I'm in CT and know what you mean about the cold, but those really look like IS or processing effects to me. Of course I could be wrong, and the lens looks sharp (and optimized for close work) from the shots I see.
gdi
Veteran
That's what I figure. I've seen some really cool results from a real neat leap in technology. Just because it's not a tool that would fit in my kit or work for my shooting doesn't mean it's not capable of great results.
I was more skeptical of the people buying the G1 as a platform for adapted M lenses.
I wonder why you're skeptical.
Do you doubt that the lenses will work on the G1? Or that you doubt they can be focused quickly enough? I am interested in seeing how that will work out too...
gdi
Veteran
It seems the G1+M Lenses are only good for taking pictures of things that don't move. HaH
But that's just based on the pictures I've seen.
Here one with movement and people shot by the photog with a Noctilux ...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3240/3156007032_3836c0d776_b.jpg
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
The biggest con for me in the G1, as a wide angle user, is other then the kit lens, the VC 12 is the only useable wide giving a FOV of 24mm.
Use a Canon FD 7.5mm for a 15mm wide.
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.