Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
I've resisted buying into the current generation of digital point and shoots because they haven't worked the way I do. I'm a heavy user of digital SLRs for action, but I much prefer traditional RF-type equipment and technique for the rest of my work.
For me, a camera isn't worthy of serious consideration without some form of eye-level viewing - I'm not comfortable with the new arms-length model of use. I've considered most of the cameras that have come along over the last few years, most recently the Panasonic G-1 and Canon G11, but nothing has impressed me enough to buy.
My ideal M4/3 system would look very much like a smaller Panasonic DMC-L1 with a built-in high quality EVF in traditional M body position but with interchangeable lenses. It would probably need to be larger than a GF-1, but not by much.
I have no real need or desire for a zoom in this type of camera; a fast prime in the 35mm-40mm range is preferred. I don't want to fiddle with buttons and dials to focus manually; the M4/3 lenses all seem to have lens mounted focus collars. I shoot everything in RAW, check. An eye-level finder is available. The sample images it DPReview are decent, and what I've seen out of the G-1 has impressed me given the size of the sensor. I'm not crazy about the GF-1's EVF positioning, I can see a need to constantly clean the back screen of noseprints and I wonder if my schnoz will press the flash release button.
The GF-1 is much closer to my ideal than anything else out there and may be close enough to make me jump. The only major issue is whether I can live with the EVF, particularly in low light. If the GF-1 EVF sucks I may end up looking at a G-1 with the new 20, but I find the G-1 to be a bit clunky in the hand.
It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out.
For me, a camera isn't worthy of serious consideration without some form of eye-level viewing - I'm not comfortable with the new arms-length model of use. I've considered most of the cameras that have come along over the last few years, most recently the Panasonic G-1 and Canon G11, but nothing has impressed me enough to buy.
My ideal M4/3 system would look very much like a smaller Panasonic DMC-L1 with a built-in high quality EVF in traditional M body position but with interchangeable lenses. It would probably need to be larger than a GF-1, but not by much.
I have no real need or desire for a zoom in this type of camera; a fast prime in the 35mm-40mm range is preferred. I don't want to fiddle with buttons and dials to focus manually; the M4/3 lenses all seem to have lens mounted focus collars. I shoot everything in RAW, check. An eye-level finder is available. The sample images it DPReview are decent, and what I've seen out of the G-1 has impressed me given the size of the sensor. I'm not crazy about the GF-1's EVF positioning, I can see a need to constantly clean the back screen of noseprints and I wonder if my schnoz will press the flash release button.
The GF-1 is much closer to my ideal than anything else out there and may be close enough to make me jump. The only major issue is whether I can live with the EVF, particularly in low light. If the GF-1 EVF sucks I may end up looking at a G-1 with the new 20, but I find the G-1 to be a bit clunky in the hand.
It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out.
amateriat
We're all light!
Likewise. It'll take shaking out the details in-person to determine how "close" thi thing is, but I like the outline of it all so far.
- Barrett
- Barrett
It doesn't look like the new 20 has Super Mega OIS. Not a bad thing, that may help keep the cost down a little.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
It just seems to me that Canon and Nikon must eventually answer to this niche.
If I were looking for a digital camera, that would be the winner.
If I were looking for a digital camera, that would be the winner.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Without a finder, it's useless as far as I'm concerned. The G1 is just a better package to me.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
I have to admit the rumored X-1 looks good, too - a little long with a 50mm equivalent lens (based on the APS-C rumors) but if it has a decent EVF... I don't know if I could live with the X-1 design with an uncoupled OVF, though.
This is turning out to be a good time for shopping!
(EDIT) Doh - 24mm on an APS-C would be in the region of 35mm, much better. Not enough coffee earlier.
This is turning out to be a good time for shopping!
(EDIT) Doh - 24mm on an APS-C would be in the region of 35mm, much better. Not enough coffee earlier.
Last edited:
dazedgonebye
Veteran
According to dpreview, there is an optional evf.
That doesn't even matter in the end. EVF or not, if sales of these cameras are strong then Canon and Nikon will care. If not, they will just go down their own roads. Business is business.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I guess I'm projecting that sales will be strong enough to interest Cannon. The only real hold up right now is price. $800 is perhaps a bit high compared to the equivalent DSLR, though many people may be willing to pay the premium for the form factor. I think I would.
My wife needs a new camera and I'm trying to think of how I can spin her needing one that expensive. :angel:
I bet she would love a G11. 
Travelbug
Member
Has anybody considered using a Voigtländer 40mm finder with the pancake? I think it would be a great option for street photography on both cameras (EP-1 and GF1).
Regards Klaus
Regards Klaus
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
I'm using the Oly finder with the 17mm, (34mm) on the E-P1...it's like the old Leica 35mm finders, but made of plastic...
it makes the camera....
shooter
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
I agree. I bought a G1 and. although the images were superb, I could not get used to the EVF finder or arms length shooting with the screen. I sold it and bought a used Digilux 3 with Olympus finder magnifier for everyday use and kept a Canon 5D which I use with R lenses for any serious work. On the whole, I still prefer film and Leica M, but in the real world it's good to have both capabilities.
FrankS
Registered User
It's getting closer and closer to what I'm looking for.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Viewfinder is but one of the issues. I am interested to see if the X-1 really comes out with a real shutter speed dial or what.
B2 (;->
B2 (;->
250swb
Well-known
I thought at first the lower resolution of the GF1's finder was a disappointment, but now I'm not so sure.
How much of the image you capture do you see in the OVF of a film camera? You see where the components are arranged, and the focus point, but nothing more. You still need an intellectual jump to get you to the final image depending on film type and processing. You don't see the film grain, contrast, or colour rendering in the OVF, you only see anything (other than in your minds eye) when you get the film in the darkroom. So I don't buy into the sanctity of the OVF, or even the perfect rendering of the scene in an EVF, because compromises between eye and brain have been made since the dawn of photography, so why throw out a learned skill now? Making new rules about what viewfinders should or should not do (or be capable of) compared to what has gone before is wanting your cake and eating it. A 100% view is ideal for me, that is all that is needed.
Steve
How much of the image you capture do you see in the OVF of a film camera? You see where the components are arranged, and the focus point, but nothing more. You still need an intellectual jump to get you to the final image depending on film type and processing. You don't see the film grain, contrast, or colour rendering in the OVF, you only see anything (other than in your minds eye) when you get the film in the darkroom. So I don't buy into the sanctity of the OVF, or even the perfect rendering of the scene in an EVF, because compromises between eye and brain have been made since the dawn of photography, so why throw out a learned skill now? Making new rules about what viewfinders should or should not do (or be capable of) compared to what has gone before is wanting your cake and eating it. A 100% view is ideal for me, that is all that is needed.
Steve
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Steve, good point - but it still needs to be usable in low light, which is my concern.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
I agree with Ken Ford's lead article on his main points.
A digicam is useless without a viewfinder...arm's length photography is bad not only because of looking like a tourist, but difficult to hold the camera steady. No, despite all sort of optical or electronic IS systems, a steady shot is the best shot to begin with.
No, bi-focals are not a solution. A viewing distance of 4" (0.1m) can only be achieve with a +10 diopter lens...coke bottle territory. Or, remove your glasses if you are a mild myopia (-3~-4).
[Reading power in diopter = reciprocal of viewing distance in metres. A viewing distance of 0.5m or ~19" is 1/0.5 = +2.0...my normal newspaper reading power.]
Manufacturers from cell phone to digicams should think about us aging yuppies...we have money to buy toys but cannot see close like the yewt's.
The GF1 has at lease the option of an EVF. However, I am wondering if an optical viewfinder is used (an 85% coverage 35mm VF is a tight 40mm) for the fast prime lens, will the camera autonomous auto-focusing still work? If so, part of the happy days are here again!
Speaking of focus, the EVF should allow decent visualization of manual focusing because it is claimed to also allow dept-of-field preview. We will soon see.
The GF1 body thickness is 35mm, prime lens (20mm.f1.7) thickness is 20mm...making the whole package a very pocket-able 55mm or ~2 inches...yeah!
I can foresee using my CV 40mm/1.4 with an M4/3 adapter. The lens+adapter would only add ~40mm to the body flange...still pocket-able. However, the focusing must be performed via an EVF...I can live with that.
Is there a pancake 10~12mm M-mount lens that didn't cost more than the camera out there?
A digicam is useless without a viewfinder...arm's length photography is bad not only because of looking like a tourist, but difficult to hold the camera steady. No, despite all sort of optical or electronic IS systems, a steady shot is the best shot to begin with.
No, bi-focals are not a solution. A viewing distance of 4" (0.1m) can only be achieve with a +10 diopter lens...coke bottle territory.
Or, remove your glasses if you are a mild myopia (-3~-4).[Reading power in diopter = reciprocal of viewing distance in metres. A viewing distance of 0.5m or ~19" is 1/0.5 = +2.0...my normal newspaper reading power.]
Manufacturers from cell phone to digicams should think about us aging yuppies...we have money to buy toys but cannot see close like the yewt's.
The GF1 has at lease the option of an EVF. However, I am wondering if an optical viewfinder is used (an 85% coverage 35mm VF is a tight 40mm) for the fast prime lens, will the camera autonomous auto-focusing still work? If so, part of the happy days are here again!
Speaking of focus, the EVF should allow decent visualization of manual focusing because it is claimed to also allow dept-of-field preview. We will soon see.
The GF1 body thickness is 35mm, prime lens (20mm.f1.7) thickness is 20mm...making the whole package a very pocket-able 55mm or ~2 inches...yeah!
I can foresee using my CV 40mm/1.4 with an M4/3 adapter. The lens+adapter would only add ~40mm to the body flange...still pocket-able. However, the focusing must be performed via an EVF...I can live with that.
Is there a pancake 10~12mm M-mount lens that didn't cost more than the camera out there?
Last edited:
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I still think that perhaps the best way to use this sort of camera is with an external optical finder and trust to the AF.
I think of how I use my Hexar AF. The finder is built in and there is parallax correction, but you are just framing and trusting the AF.
This camera could stand in for the Hexar AF, at least with the 20mm f1.7 lens.
I think of how I use my Hexar AF. The finder is built in and there is parallax correction, but you are just framing and trusting the AF.
This camera could stand in for the Hexar AF, at least with the 20mm f1.7 lens.
BillBingham2
Registered User
I think the manufactures are missing the mark. They need to come out with higher cost EVF (say 3x the current) that provides an optical like quality for those who really want it. Me, I'm hoping Leica brings out some good primes on monday.
B2 (;->
B2 (;->