How many M8 (M owners too) bought a Lumix G1 and why.

E

eleskin

Well-known
Local time
3:24 PM
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,080
I am wondering why some M8/M owners have bought a Lumix G1. I seem to be attracted to it as a camera you can take with you if you feel like leaving your M8 at home for various reasons. My attraction to it is its use with high speed lenses for critical focus(Noctilux, Nokton, etc,,,), Leica M Telephotos, and especially FSU lenses (Industar 61 LD, Jupiter 8, 9) that do not focus that well on the M8.
 
I just read the suggested thread that links to another forum where the same question was asked. That discussion was incomplete and still a bit premature. People are too quick to quote Sean Reid's conclusion as "Leica wide M lenses do not perform well with it." The correct conclusion would be "Leica wide M lenses do not work as well with the G1 as with the M8." Nothing works as well with the M8. That does not mean the lenses don't work well with the G1. They do. But this means that the G1 is not a replacement for the M8. Who would buy it as a replacement in the first place? I bought it as a backup for the M8, meaning I'll take it with me and use it in situations that don't fit the M8 well (not many, but certainly with longer lenses) or if the M8 should ever fail (never happened yet). The G1 only cost me $600, less than any new Leica lens. Why would anyone expect it to work as well as the M8. On the other hand, if you don't have or cannot afford the $5000 for a Leica M8/2, then by all means the G1 is the next best digital camera to use Leica type lenses on.

I bought the G1 as a complement to the M8 for a trip to the Galapagos Islands. I thought I would need the 400mm equivalent long lens on the G1 and did not want the weight of a new D90 or D700 just for that purpose. Proved right: I really didn't need the longer lens that often and the ability to crop the M8 image almost makes up for the lack of a lens longer than 50-75mm. This proved correct too. The two were light enough to walk around with one in each hand. So, if this is what you need (how else to get a 400m reach and a backup for Leica 24-50mm lenses?

I'm currently testing the image quality of the Leica M8 and G1 with the same 50mm rigid summicron lens (that really excelled in the Galapagos). I also just tested the G1 with my 75mm Summilux (turned into a 150mm lens on the G1). The images look quite beautiful so far. Focusing is not a problem, nor weight.

Repeat: there's absolutely no reason to use the G1 as a substitute for the M8. You'd always use the M8. But now I'm wondering how my wonderful Nikon 180mm lens would perform with an adapter on the G1 (with a 360mm reach).
 
My G1 has certainly become a replacement for all of my other cameras: R-D1, various P&S, and definitely film. It is only the slowness of the kit lens(es) that keeps it from completely usurping all of my other cameras, and no, using M lenses with an adapter doesn't make up for the slowness of the available lenses because with the 2x crop factor you have to use something like f2.8 21mm lenses to get a 42mm FOV, and f2.8 just isn't that fast. I know, I know, it doesn't have the "quality" of an M8 or R-D1, but shot for shot, iso for iso, dollar for dollar, it's good enough. And "good enough" always wins.

/T
 
Never even considered it. Why not use the M8 if you have one?

I've had numerous 'pocketable' cameras over the years. I still have a few, e.g. Pen W and Retina IIa. But they never saw much use next to film Leicas, which is why I can't imagine a 'pocketable' digi seeing much use next to the M8.2.

Tashi delek,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Why not use the M8 if you have one?
Click to expand...

1) Auto focus for older eyes
2) Great electronic view finder and articulated screen, in other words, the view through the camera's pointing system is superior...and that is one of the main reasons for using a rangefinder in the first place.

/T
 
I'm waiting for the Olympus, or anybody else who comes out with a micro-4/3 body in a flat, P&S-style-body. Since it would be just a backup for the M8, I want something as packable as possible. Till then, the DLux3 is remaining my M8 backup. So far so good, never had to power it up.
 
Yup, that is about it, Benson, in my case the DLux4, about as good as the G1 in image quality or maybe better and much more practical.
 
jaapv said:
Yup, that is about it, Benson, in my case the DLux4, about as good as the G1 in image quality or maybe better and much more practical.
Click to expand...

I concur. I'm getting such good IQ from the D-Lux 4 that I'm beginning to question whether I need anything more. My D-Lux 4 usually goes with me on a trip; my D-200 usually stays home. While we are at it, my Digilux 2 also gives me excellent IQ. With "only" 5MP, it can keep up with the D-Lux in many shots.
 
Another thing, I had the G1 for a very short while - fortunately it had a two week return policy on it, and it utterly failed to impress me. The files look well on screen, but as soon as one starts printing it is clear that any microcontrast and "sparkle" is lacking. It may be the sensor, it may be the agressive noisereduction which seems to kick in at even the lowest ISO, I don't know. But putting M lenses on it is a waste imo. Add the marginal ergonomics and still-yukky EVF to the package, all that is left is a decent camera for the price, nothing more.
 
I toyed with the idea for several months about getting one but decided the Faux DSLR look and small sensor killed it for me. Went and got a Leicaflex SL2 so I can use R lenses on both my FF Canons digitals and film.
 
jaapv said:
Another thing, I had the G1 for a very short while - fortunately it had a two week return policy on it, and it utterly failed to impress me. The files look well on screen, but as soon as one starts printing it is clear that any microcontrast and "sparkle" is lacking. It may be the sensor, it may be the agressive noisereduction which seems to kick in at even the lowest ISO, I don't know. But putting M lenses on it is a waste imo. Add the marginal ergonomics and still-yukky EVF to the package, all that is left is a decent camera for the price, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Curious how something can look good on screen, but not in a print?

I haven't seen any evidence of aggressive NR, but I shoot RAW.

M lenses provide necessary speed, but there are other options for that, too. I love the EVF, makes focusing a breeze even in low light. Couldn't accurately focus the M8 even with a VF magnifier.
 
jaapv said:
Another thing, I had the G1 for a very short while - fortunately it had a two week return policy on it, and it utterly failed to impress me. The files look well on screen, but as soon as one starts printing it is clear that any microcontrast and "sparkle" is lacking. It may be the sensor, it may be the agressive noisereduction which seems to kick in at even the lowest ISO, I don't know. But putting M lenses on it is a waste imo. Add the marginal ergonomics and still-yukky EVF to the package, all that is left is a decent camera for the price, nothing more.
Click to expand...

I think the EVF is great. Try and focus an M8 in near total darkness - perfectly feasible with the G1, not to mention you have auto focus at your disposal, too. The images do look great on screen, and I shoot almost exclusively JPGs. I haven't printed anything large yet, maybe I'll do it today to see how the prints compare.

/T
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom