Pros/cons of using M lenses on G1

back alley said:
after using the g1 with only the kit lens for the past week or so...

i look forward to the new 20/1.7 lens as this should make a truly compact combo and i like the 40 mm pov.
while i also look forward to my adapter arriving, i see the use of m mount lenses as an added bonus and not necessarily a reason to own a g1.
i hope the 25/2.8 will make a great 'normal' lens and i think the 35/2.8 is gonna be a killer short tele but in truth i hope they retain the 'zeiss look' that i like about them.
for me only time will tell.
Click to expand...

curious since you've been selling your Minolta AF lenses, can we assume you're leaving the Sony A dSLR system? If so, what prompted you to switch from a traditional SLR system that you had already invested glass in to the 4/3s system. What do you hope to gain (other than the bonus of having M mount compatibility?). I own and use a D200 with Nikkor glass and have to admit that the size of the G1 is very very tempting... main things holding me back are lack of an optical VF and dependency on EVF and the crop factor.. thanks for your thoughts.
 
Last edited:
monochromejrnl said:
curious since you've been selling your Minolta AF lenses, can we assume you're leaving the Sony A dSLR system? If so, what prompted you to switch from a traditional SLR system that you had already invested glass in to the 4/3s system. What do you hope to gain (other than the bonus of having M mount compatibility?). I own and use a D200 with Nikkor glass and have to admit that the size of the G1 is very very tempting... main things holding me back are lack of an optical VF and dependency on EVF and the crop factor.. thanks for your thoughts.
Click to expand...

to be honest, i am not sure what i will do with the sony. i have 2 sigma zooms that i quite like and use, the 12-24 and the 24-60. these 2 give me pretty much what i need. i sold off 2 primes and the 70-210 zoom, a nice lens but i rarely used it.
the smaller primes were nice but the g1 gives me a small package and a great zoom.
my problem is that i like the sony and it feels good in my hands. the g1 seems to also be a great camera, i love the mini zoom kit lens for size and sharpness and look forward to that tiny prime lens. that i can use my zeiss lenses on the g1 is a tremendous bonus and i hope/think it will be tons of fun.
as to the evf, it is really good and great in low light, though most of my shooting is done in daylight. i have had no problems adjusting and having had a panasonic fz20 before, the g1 actually feels very familiar, very quickly to my hands.

joe
 
If Leica wants to reinvent itself it could do alot worse than make lenses designed for the m4/3rds format. Then all they have to do is introduce a m4/3rds camera, all metal construction please, and they'd be set for the future.

/T
 
There is a single micro 4/3's camera on the market and a couple of lenses for it. How did it get to be the future of photography? It certainly hasn't even be shown if the G1 will make it in the consumer market, despite the enthusiasm of Leica owners.
 
for the record, i am not a leica owner...

who knows what tomorrow will bring but for today, this camera makes great images on it's own and as a bonus my zeiss lenses also fit on it.

what's not to like especially considering it's not all that expensive.
 
I hope it does well. Colour rendition of certain lenses has been briefly mentioned in this thread, let's not forget that the G1 has various "Film Modes" which alter colour/dynamic range/contrast curves. This leaves lots of room for experiment; modern high-contrast lenses can be toned down, old uncoated lenses can be given a high contrast look etc.
To me, it could have been made smaller but it does handle well. Can't wait to see what Olympus release, and I'd love to see a Leica micro-4/3 body and/or lenses made of metal (preferably brass) and for these 3 companies to make an expansive range of accessories.
I'd like to own the G1 but currently have better uses for money (or the wife does at any rate), but I do get to meddle with these cameras through work. DSLRs don't do much for me, only the Olympus 410/420 being close to OM size - but the G1 is the one digital I would use as my main camera.

Long live the Micro 4/3 mount !
 
There have been threads on RFF for quite some time discussing the future of camera design. No mirror, live view, EVF were common components.

As to popularity and enthusiasm, it's only been out about two months, and has already sold enough to make the top 20 in Japan for the entire year of 2008, that's pretty good, considering it's up against cameras that have been in the market for a lot longer.
 
Larry Mclendon said:
There is a single micro 4/3's camera on the market and a couple of lenses for it. How did it get to be the future of photography? It certainly hasn't even be shown if the G1 will make it in the consumer market, despite the enthusiasm of Leica owners.
Click to expand...

I think the enthusiasm is from a wider group than just M lens owners, but I agree, it is early to crown M43 as the future of photography, if not for any other reason then becasue Nikon and Canon likely will never embrace it.

That said, the market for non SLR cameras is huge, and the high end of this category where the DSLR has made in roads is where M43 will compete and can be successful, maybe. The G1 is competing against the D40 not the D3.
 
The G1 isn't a DSLR, though. I'm not sure how it got into a ranking with DSLR's, which are a relatively small segment of the digital camera market worldwide.

At the least it's a new toy for gear guys to play with for a while. I think it will be great with the tiny pancake lens!
 
Once the price settles, and other manufacturers join in, I think there is a market for a good small camera system. From feedback I get selling the things, DSLRs are too big/heavy for many, cameras like GR-D and DP-1 lack the versatility of a DSLR, along with more mainstream cameras like Canon's G10 and Pan/Lei LX3/D-Lux4.
The price is putting many off at the moment, with the media-fuelled "Credit Crunch" , but people react favourably to it and those who have put their hands in their pockets are raving about it.
 
Im getting one. Its not expensive and light enough to tag along with my MP. The ability to use my Leica glass seals this deal. Better $600 than $1600 for a used RD.
 
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.
 
The Pana 7-14 shouldn't be much bigger than the kit lens, the photo above doesn't have a scale reference...
 
Maybe Cosina will make primes for micro 4/3rds. If it becomes a succesful system, Sigma most certainly will.

A Leica micro four/thirds will be a Panasonic clone for too much money, but they might feel obliged to make a few primes... that would be great.
 
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.
 
The Epson body was what, $3K when it came out? The M8, $5K?

G1 body with ASPH kit lens, $800. Street, $500.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom