taffy
Well-known
Hi I know I will never be able to afford an M9 so I'm considering the GF1 with the 20mm pancake. My only concerns are:
1. No optical Viewfinder. How are you RF shooters taking on to the P&S camera style shooting of the GF1
2. Focus. Since there is no focus ring on the lens, how will this affect the speed in shooting with the GF1
3. Performance of M / VC lenses on m4/3 cameras. Do they perform the same as when shot with film RFs? I have the elmar M and vc 35pII.
Hope to get some feedback from you guys.
1. No optical Viewfinder. How are you RF shooters taking on to the P&S camera style shooting of the GF1
2. Focus. Since there is no focus ring on the lens, how will this affect the speed in shooting with the GF1
3. Performance of M / VC lenses on m4/3 cameras. Do they perform the same as when shot with film RFs? I have the elmar M and vc 35pII.
Hope to get some feedback from you guys.
back alley
IMAGES
get the g1 along with the 20, just a great combo! and way more flexible.
i had an adapter to use m mount lenses on my g1 but sold it. i much prefer to use all the bells and whistles on the g1, including the quick auto focus and leave the m lenses and manual focus for the rd1.
i had an adapter to use m mount lenses on my g1 but sold it. i much prefer to use all the bells and whistles on the g1, including the quick auto focus and leave the m lenses and manual focus for the rd1.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
It's not an M9, But...
It's not an M9, But...
I have an E-P1 and find it a very sharp tool. I prefer it to the GF-1 as it has in body IS and thus all lenses will be stabilized. I have a vision problem with manual focus which caused me to sell off my R-D1s Epson rangefinder. If you want a more Leica like camera look for one of those in the classified. I find that the lack of VF isn't a problem, in fact I seem to compose better using live view. Hope this is of some help.
It's not an M9, But...
I have an E-P1 and find it a very sharp tool. I prefer it to the GF-1 as it has in body IS and thus all lenses will be stabilized. I have a vision problem with manual focus which caused me to sell off my R-D1s Epson rangefinder. If you want a more Leica like camera look for one of those in the classified. I find that the lack of VF isn't a problem, in fact I seem to compose better using live view. Hope this is of some help.
ReeRay
Well-known
There's an optional EVF which although not great does work. Mine is permanently attached.
There is a manual focus ring. Twist the lens ring and a 4x zoom appears to confirm focus. Switch to manual focus for full control. Very fast in either mode.
Not sure about M lenses but via an adapter my Contax G lenses simply sparkle.
taffy
Well-known
Hi I'm happy to know the Contax G lenses work well because I have access to them! The focus ring is like the Olympus 4/3 ring which is a focus-by-wire method? Can I possibly pre-focus like we do on rangefinders?
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
I use Four Thirds bodies and sometimes "pre-focus" by focussing on something at the correct distance. Necessary to keep the release button half depressed.
Merkin
For the Weekend
Depending on how the images look from them once people actually get their hands on them, I think the Samsung NX-10 with the 30mm pancake will probably be closer to the ideal of a 'poor man's digital M,' mainly because of the built in viewfinder. Sure, it is apparently going to be unable to use M lenses, but if you put aside the leica brand and think about what the Leica camera originally was, which was a small, lightweight, fast operating miniature format camera that still allows you control over the image, that is precisely what the NX-10 is.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
You are going to have to use a brightline finder, but keep in mind that the aspect ratio is 4:3, instead of the usual 3:2...
You can't scale or zone focus with the AF lenses. As an example there is no provision to preset manual focus to 2.5 meters and bang away. You can wing it by focusing on something via the AF and then keeping the shutter release button half depressed, but that's not really a viable solution. The best solution is to use an older manual focus lens via an adaptor. The problem is to find a highspeed wide. Most 21mm lenses are no faster than f2.8 or f4.
Keep in mind that you need to apply a multiplier of x2 to all lenses.
So, your Voightlander 35mm, becomes a 70mm on the GF-1.
Unfortunately the EP-1/GF-1 is by no means a real substitute for an M8/M9. They are nice cameras, but it's just not the same.
Last edited:
Y.B.hudson III
Member
EP-1/GF-1(with out EVF) are useless in bright sun light, unless your a blind hip-shooter. manual focus by wire is a frustrating experience with the 20mm 1.7. It's not anything like shooting a summicron 35 on a M.
The G1 with it's flip out LCD and Excellent EVF... is an excellent platform for shooting fast, esoteric MF lenses on the street.
The G1 with it's flip out LCD and Excellent EVF... is an excellent platform for shooting fast, esoteric MF lenses on the street.
Last edited:
ReeRay
Well-known
New adapter which is still to arrive has a rear mounted large full circular ring for manual focus of G lenses. The current RJ adapter has a tiny little wheel "thing" that is fiddly but works well enough.
And yes, you can pre-focus, as I often do.
Here's a link to what I'm awaiting
http://cgi.ebay.com/CONTAX-G-Lens-to-Micro-M4-3-with-Focusing-Ring-Adapter_W0QQitemZ300402529798QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item45f162d606#ht_500wt_956
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
I thought the R-D1 was the poor man's Digital M. It uses M glass too.
Finder
Veteran
Just to clarify, the M8 is the richman's E-P1.
I use optical brightline finders for the Olympus 17mm and Voigtlander 12mm. I find the autofocus quite fast when using the 17mm--I fix the focus area to the center of the frame so it is easy to judge using the optical finder. Scale focusing the 12mm is not a challenge. I have 90mm M-mount lens I focus with the monitor. I like how my 12mm works on the E-P1--the angle of view is different and depth of field is shallower, but I find the results quite acceptable. Naturally, you understand you are only using a 1/4 on the image area of a 35mm frame and so the the lens performs exactly as it does on a larger camera that has been cropped down.
I don't believe to can substitute formats and processes. If you like the look of TriX, then you need to shoot TriX. You are not going to reproduce the look of a larger format with a smaller one--it is dumb to complain that your compact camera just can't get the quality of your 8x10 view camera or an E-P1 can't match the M8 output. Shoot a m/43 as an m4/3 camera. If you are looking for an M8, there is only one way to get that.
I use optical brightline finders for the Olympus 17mm and Voigtlander 12mm. I find the autofocus quite fast when using the 17mm--I fix the focus area to the center of the frame so it is easy to judge using the optical finder. Scale focusing the 12mm is not a challenge. I have 90mm M-mount lens I focus with the monitor. I like how my 12mm works on the E-P1--the angle of view is different and depth of field is shallower, but I find the results quite acceptable. Naturally, you understand you are only using a 1/4 on the image area of a 35mm frame and so the the lens performs exactly as it does on a larger camera that has been cropped down.
I don't believe to can substitute formats and processes. If you like the look of TriX, then you need to shoot TriX. You are not going to reproduce the look of a larger format with a smaller one--it is dumb to complain that your compact camera just can't get the quality of your 8x10 view camera or an E-P1 can't match the M8 output. Shoot a m/43 as an m4/3 camera. If you are looking for an M8, there is only one way to get that.
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
"Shoot a m/43 as an m4/3 camera. If you are looking for an M8, there is only one way to get that."
Amen. I bought my G1 hoping to have a bargain M8, but it turned out that a M43 with an M lens attached is a whole different game, owing mostly to the crop factor and the difficulty focussing. Actually, difficulty is the wrong word, more, it's an interruption of the smooth flow when an M used is used on an M body. That said, I really like the quality of the M43 images. Now, though, I use a GF1 and a 20mm.
Amen. I bought my G1 hoping to have a bargain M8, but it turned out that a M43 with an M lens attached is a whole different game, owing mostly to the crop factor and the difficulty focussing. Actually, difficulty is the wrong word, more, it's an interruption of the smooth flow when an M used is used on an M body. That said, I really like the quality of the M43 images. Now, though, I use a GF1 and a 20mm.
taffy
Well-known
Who's complaining about not getting 8x10 quality from their compact? I was just wondering about viewfinders, focus, and M lenses on the GF1.
That aside, you make a good point on shooting the real thing to get the real thing.
taffy
Well-known
Thanks this dogberryjr. Has your approach to shooting changed a lot since getting the GF1? I sort of find shooting rf's refreshingly simple and fluid and I'm wondering if shooting with a GF1 will be all that different. I'm willing to accept image quality differences but I'm more concerned whether shooting can still be fast and uncomplicated. Hope to get your thoughts on this.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Everybody's right, m4/3ds is its own perfect thing. If you want a digital M, save up for an R-D1 or M8. Though I do love shooting Olympus Pen lenses on this format!
I have been quite happy with the GF1 but am waiting for a body with stabilization and a viewfinder. If Pana doesn't deliver with their new cameras this weekend (2 new m4/3 to be announced Sunday apparently), I'll probably replace the GF1 with an E-P2. If film died tomorrow (and here's hoping it doesn't) I could be perfectly satisfied for a long time with m4/3 and the M8 alone.
I have been quite happy with the GF1 but am waiting for a body with stabilization and a viewfinder. If Pana doesn't deliver with their new cameras this weekend (2 new m4/3 to be announced Sunday apparently), I'll probably replace the GF1 with an E-P2. If film died tomorrow (and here's hoping it doesn't) I could be perfectly satisfied for a long time with m4/3 and the M8 alone.
stnolan
Established
Taffy,
I agree the GF1 is it's own thing. I bought the EVF and am glad I did. It's low res but in bright sunshine it is near impossible to use the live view screen. I only use it on AF and find it relatively fast but the real gem is the 20mm f1.7 lens. I have made prints from this that are very impressive to my eyes. I find I shoot a bit more with it then I did when I had the M8. Maybe it's because its a bit more portable.
I agree the GF1 is it's own thing. I bought the EVF and am glad I did. It's low res but in bright sunshine it is near impossible to use the live view screen. I only use it on AF and find it relatively fast but the real gem is the 20mm f1.7 lens. I have made prints from this that are very impressive to my eyes. I find I shoot a bit more with it then I did when I had the M8. Maybe it's because its a bit more portable.
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
Taffy- I have my GF1 on a Gordy's wrist strap, so I can loop it over my hand and not worry about it. As far as shooting, I am usually happy to shoot with it set on autofocus and "intelligent autoexposure" which makes for smooth (effortless) shooting. The camera really seems to have an affinity for f1.7, so I often go to aperture priority to vary depth of field, and that is simple to do. Also, I have the EVF and I use that for the majority of my shooting, mostly because it feels better to me, so there again, it's not so far from the rangefinder experience.
stnolan- I was drooling over that M7 you sold. What a beauty! But back to the GF1- I agree that its compactness makes it my most likely grab as you go camera.
stnolan- I was drooling over that M7 you sold. What a beauty! But back to the GF1- I agree that its compactness makes it my most likely grab as you go camera.
kully
Happy Snapper
What a number of people have already said. I have an M8 and a GF-1 - the GF-1 is lovely to use, but the output does not have the crispness and ... tonality(?) of the M8 files.
It also has 2x the crop-factor and manually focussing in the dark with the EVF is challenging.
However, both of them really show off the quality of a lens - for example, the ZM 50/1.5 is gorgeous on both of the.
It also has 2x the crop-factor and manually focussing in the dark with the EVF is challenging.
However, both of them really show off the quality of a lens - for example, the ZM 50/1.5 is gorgeous on both of the.
emraphoto
Veteran
is the gf-1 an M8/M9? as others have offered i would vote no.
is the gf-1 a competent, compact digital camera capable of excellent images? most certainly.
so far, and i have only had it a scant few days, the gf-1 is a great and VERY powerful tool that falls short in some areas of the interface. the wheel on the back being the most significant. it hasn't shown up in any of the "my iso is bigger than your iso" reviews but the wheel that controls aperture changes and compensation is very difficult to use on the fly. this is where the M excels so if this is important to you then the gf-1 will fall short. i have not spent any time with the oly version so i cannot speak to it.
i am quite comfortable with the noise levels up to iso 1600 and rarely shoot up there anyhow. i know image stabilization is a powerful and effective bit of wizardry however i personally avoid it so again not much of an issue. the raw images are more than suitable for me.
has the gf-1 replaced an M for me? not sure yet. if i can develop a comfort level with the interface then yes. that to me would be the most important question if i am understanding your question.
is the gf-1 a competent, compact digital camera capable of excellent images? most certainly.
so far, and i have only had it a scant few days, the gf-1 is a great and VERY powerful tool that falls short in some areas of the interface. the wheel on the back being the most significant. it hasn't shown up in any of the "my iso is bigger than your iso" reviews but the wheel that controls aperture changes and compensation is very difficult to use on the fly. this is where the M excels so if this is important to you then the gf-1 will fall short. i have not spent any time with the oly version so i cannot speak to it.
i am quite comfortable with the noise levels up to iso 1600 and rarely shoot up there anyhow. i know image stabilization is a powerful and effective bit of wizardry however i personally avoid it so again not much of an issue. the raw images are more than suitable for me.
has the gf-1 replaced an M for me? not sure yet. if i can develop a comfort level with the interface then yes. that to me would be the most important question if i am understanding your question.