G1 impact on lens character?

[Jamie Pillers]

I'm not yet reading much here about the images the Panasonic G1 creates with M-mount lenses. I'm very interested in hearing about whether you G1 owners feel the character of your Summicron or Noctilux or Ultron or (your favorite M-mount lens) images look the same using the G1 as they did on film. It would be great if you could describe any differences you see. Thanks much.

 

[skibeerr]

Do the test yourself

Do the test yourself

Go to flickr and do a search on Panasonic G1

I found myself able to pick out foto's made with Leica lenses from the thumbnails.

Cheers,

Wim

 

[M4cr0s]

Pardon my simple and naive response, but be not the "character" of a lens pretty much identical, regardless of medium? The only exception being the fact that high-resolution digital sensors have a tendency to push lenses up against a wall, resolutionwise (can't imagine that'd be much of a problem with a 2x crop sensor on a Leica-lens though)? Also, due to the AA filter on digital sensors, I presume some lack contrast and sharpness might be evident, hence the need for boosting in PP.

If you search flickr for "panasonic g1 summicron" or similar, I think you'll find a good number of pictures showing what results people have. Over at the Panasonic-forums on dpreview.com there are also a great number of threads with examples/experiences from people trying M-mount lenses on their G1's.

/Mac

 

[splitimageview]

I've used Summicrons, Summarits, Biogons, Planars, vintage Canons, Nikkors, and Carl Zeiss Sonnars, and lots of other lenses on the G1 (M mount and many others, such as Leica R.) The individual lens rendering characteristics are obvious assuming one doesn't shoot at such a small aperture as to masks those characteristics.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

I have trouble seeing the true character of lenses when looking at small flickr images, except in extreme cases (when photographer tries to show off bokeh, etc.). I'm interested in hearing from those folk that have used the G1 and M-mount lenses to make prints, and whether they still see the lens characteristics they enjoyed when using film.

 

[ampguy]

From what I've read here (but not seen!) is that the kit lens can look like a Noctilux!! Can't wait for the G1H, but for video use 😉

 

[Tuolumne]

They all look the same to me, and I have a G1 and a bunch of M glass. They even look the same as the G1 kit lens. There have been a number of threads on the topic here. One poster, can't remember who, said it was because all of the G1's noise processing destroyed the micro-contrast by which lenses could be told apart. YMMV.

/T

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Thanks. I've read some of those posts and they more often seem to be about the photographer's impression of the camera... not its affect on the lens characteristics that the photographer was enjoying with film.

My hidden interest here is that it seems to me if a small-sensored camera like the G1 can produce images with, for example, the 'bokeh' king Summicron that are no different than the images they were getting using film.... then it seems that film is indeed on its last legs. Why would we bother with the film processing trouble if we can get the same images with digital + M-mount lenses?? Please... I'm not looking to raise the old digital vs. film arguments here; we've all probably had enough of that for now. It just seems that there are a lot of experienced Leica users here that are trying out the G1 and I'm trying to figure out if this digital-plus-high quality lens combo is in fact a big paradigm change... or just another distracting toy.

I was expecting to hear RFF members write about how its fun to use the Leica glass on the G1, but that the digital-ness of the G1's process causes a change to the image quality and that they therefore would need to keep the film bodies in order to get the lens characteristics to really show up in their prints. I haven't heard that yet... one way or the other.

 

[f16sunshine]

Noise
LotZah Noise
I have reviewed a few sets a friend sent me using FSU M39 lenses (j8,9).
Looks like a P+S. Of course it is his early go at the camera but, I'm not convinced that the true character of any lens will come through without the signature of this sensor/engine masking it.

The concept of the short register EVIL cams is great. I think I will wait t see the offering from Samsung before giving one of the M4/3 cams a try.

 

[Tuolumne]

Thanks. I've read some of those posts and they more often seem to be about the photographer's impression of the camera... not its affect on the lens characteristics that the photographer was enjoying with film.

My hidden interest here is that it seems to me if a small-sensored camera like the G1 can produce images with, for example, the 'bokeh' king Summicron that are no different than the images they were getting using film.... then it seems that film is indeed on its last legs. Why would we bother with the film processing trouble if we can get the same images with digital + M-mount lenses?? Please... I'm not looking to raise the old digital vs. film arguments here; we've all probably had enough of that for now. It just seems that there are a lot of experienced Leica users here that are trying out the G1 and I'm trying to figure out if this digital-plus-high quality lens combo is in fact a big paradigm change... or just another distracting toy.

I was expecting to hear RFF members write about how its fun to use the Leica glass on the G1, but that the digital-ness of the G1's process causes a change to the image quality and that they therefore would need to keep the film bodies in order to get the lens characteristics to really show up in their prints. I haven't heard that yet... one way or the other.

Don't the M8 and Epson R-D1 accomplish the same thing, and film still isn't dead (yet).

/T

 

[splitimageview]

There are several threads/posts about using M lenses, and G1 image processing.

One poster is adamant that the G1 'manhandles' the images, although when asked to show this, he stopped posting about it.

There are other posts about G1 and M lenses, saying that the look is the same regardless of lens. This can't be, because the kit lens is slow. I'll post some photos shortly using a Summicron-C 40 and the kit lens at 40mm.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

At $4000-ish and $2000-ish, these two bodies are not film killers. But when we start to see things like the $800-ish G1 coming... that's different. Is it the new paradigm? I don't know; I don't own it (yet). 🙂

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Thanks. That's the kind of information I'm looking for. I'll do some more searching around here. And watch future posts of course, to see whether this micro four-thirds thing is a tidal wave or a ripple. 🙂

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Yes... I think this next year is going to provide some interesting thought-provoking equipment from Olympus, Samsung... maybe Nikon. 🙂

 

[Jamie Pillers]

I'd LOVE to see those, because the only M-mount lens I currently own is the Summicron 40! 🙂

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Gotta go to work now... I'll check back tonight to see what's brewing here. Thanks everyone for your responses to my post. Much appreciated. As always, RFF 'rocks'!

 

[splitimageview]

I was just doing some quick comparisons of the Summicron-C 40/2 to an Olympus Pen F Zuiko 38/1.8 when I came across this thread, so here are the shots. This is by no means designed to be a comprehensive comparison of any of these lenses! It's just a single view from my desk.

These were taken on a tripod at the close focus distance of the Summicron (the kit lens and Pen lens will focus MUCH closer -- the last photo shows how close the Pen lens will get.) Focus manual (on the kit lens, too) on a highlight on Gumby's left eye.

ISO 100, shot RAW, converted to DNG, opened in Photoshop CS3, color balance 'as shot', no sharpening or adjustments applied, then 'save as' with quality = 6. The smaller versions were adjusted to 1024 max width then save as with quality = 6.

The kit lens is lacking contrast, I suppose due to the backlighting. Looks like the 40 year old lenses handle that better, with the Summicron having more contrast than the Zuiko.

The Olympus Pen is a 38/1.8 using a Pen F to Micro 4/3 adapter from Taiwan, and the Summicron is using a Novoflex Leica M to Micro 4/3 adapter.

All lenses are at max aperture except the Zuiko which is stopped down from f/1.8 to f/2, to match the Summicron.

Is this a fair comparison? No, as the kit lens is three full stops slower, which means selective focus is very limited (it was also not surprising it was more difficult to focus manually looking through a lens at f/5.6 than at f/2.)

Click on the photos for full size images (4000x3000)

Summicron-C 40/2 @ f/2



Olympus Pen Zuiko 38/1.8 @ f/2



Panasonic 14-45/3.5-5.6 @ 40mm f/5.6


Close focus distance of the 38/1.8 Pen:

 

[splitimageview]

Just for kicks, a slightly different angle, but all other details the same:

Carl Zeiss Opton Sonnar 50/1.5 @ f/2:

[Amedeo Contax RF to Leica M adapter + Novoflex Leica M to Micro 4/3]

 

[ampguy]

Is it just me, or is the kit lens flarey?

 

[kbg32]

I own a G1 and love it. If you are looking to use your M mount lenses, their character is not enhanced at all by the chip in this camera. I have tried Leitz, Zeiss, Canon, and CV lenses. Nothing is better then the kit lenses that are made for the G1.