Some GH1 Photos...

G

gdi

Veteran
Local time
6:26 PM
Joined
Nov 26, 2006
Messages
2,632
Since I haven't seen any GH1 shots around here (and I don't think I'll be getting an M9!)


I traded up from my G1 this week. Here are some shots with a Hexanon 50/1.2 Limited.

ISO800 and 1600:

3912367571_a0011454ce_o.jpg

3913151348_6445ee9b66_o.jpg
3912364871_11df3c4b71_o.jpg

3912366445_772cb03538_o.jpg

3913150014_413525f58b_o.jpg
 
Mainly for video, but I had read that High ISO performance was better. I think it is generally, but I see banding on some 1600/3200 shots.
 
WOW! These are beautiful! I don't understand how some folk here say they can clearly see the difference between film and digital images. These look as good as most of the b&w images I see here. Have you printed any of these bigger than 8x10? If so, what're your impressions? As good as film? If not, in what way not? Thanks.
 
i'm sure i could NOT tell the difference between film and digital--but that's just me. with cameras (or wine, for that matter), i know what i like.

gdi: i like your photos. i'd like to see more. please keep us updated on your work with the micro 4/3s and M lenses. i have been wondering if such would be a good backup for an M.

Hexanon 50/1.2 Limited: nice lens. i don't see these for sale often. weren't many made?
 
I am surprised that the GH1 has different "innards" than the G1. Could you document that anywhere? Panasonic certainly doesn't play that up in any of their promo materials.

/T
 
Jamie Pillers said:
WOW! These are beautiful! I don't understand how some folk here say they can clearly see the difference between film and digital images. These look as good as most of the b&w images I see here. Have you printed any of these bigger than 8x10? If so, what're your impressions? As good as film? If not, in what way not? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Well, bear in mind that comparing images on this site, you're comparing digital to digital - one's captured digitally, and one's scanned from film. Also, you're comparing small-ish images on a computer screen, not comparing good-sized prints. If you really want to know whether digital image quality is as good as film, compare 11x14" wet darkroom prints against inkjet prints. By many accounts digital has reached (or even surpassed) traditional materials in final image quality -- but looking at JPGs on a website won't really tell you that.

::Ari
 
Thanks for the comments..

To all:

I have not printed these, I just took them this morning, but at 8x10 there probably wouldn't be much difference between a good scan and these. But at larger sizes, I think you could tell - especially with high ISO 800 and above - the noise is not that bad but it does not really look "film like" to me. I'll post some more tomorrow I hope.

The Hexanon is a great lens and I really like the look with the GH1 or G1. I have shot some sample video with it and looks great (technically - color, sharpness, etc.) But i have a long way to go before I could produce any video of value!

Several sites have confirmed changes between the G1 and GH1 - the sensors are different. DPReview notes the new, larger sensor, with multiple aspect ratios (rather than cropping), 2 CPUs, and lower noise.

But I am becoming more comfortable with the m4/3s system and its limitations. I am trying to free myself from comparing digital and film directly - it is hard for me. I don't think I will ever see digital B&W that looks like film, but why should that bother me... ;)

Here is a similar film shot from a couple of years ago - Canon 7 and 50/0.95 on Delta 400...

2851511515_a2339006fb_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yikes -- I wish you hadn't posted that last shot. I like them all, but the last one (the one shot on film) does have a slightly better tonality -- somehow the tones "hold together" better.

This comment comes from someone who gave up film, and now shoots exclusively with the Panasonic G-1.
 
I considered the GH1 as a possible replacement for my SLR kit (that I use primarily for the rare macro and long telephoto shots) and also for its video capabilities. I really loved the prospect of recording video with my rangefinder lenses - my old 1935 50mm Summar in particular. However, I was completely shocked by the price. It is quite the increase over the regular G1! So I now plan to wait awhile and perhaps pick a used one up.

Have you tried shooting video with your M-mount lenses? I'm eager to find how the experience is like.
 
retnull said:
Yikes -- I wish you hadn't posted that last shot. I like them all, but the last one (the one shot on film) does have a slightly better tonality -- somehow the tones "hold together" better.

This comment comes from someone who gave up film, and now shoots exclusively with the Panasonic G-1.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, I still have the Canon film rig! :D

But in fairness, I did shoot the GH1 with low contrast and bumped it up, and the Hex has much more contrast than the 0.95 (I was in a contrasty mood). If I tried to process similarly, it would be a bit closer, I think.
 
However, I was completely shocked by the price.
Click to expand...
I think the price is high if someone will not be shooting video. But when I saw some of the samples of video filmed with this camera, I almost convinced myself that I needed to shoot video. It's pretty amazing, and the kit lens is optimized for video in the sense of its quiet zoom and stepless apertures.

I would like to see some video shot with vintage lenses. (Or maybe, I don't, since that might get me thinking about the camera again:))
 
kermaier said:
Well, bear in mind that comparing images on this site, you're comparing digital to digital - one's captured digitally, and one's scanned from film. Also, you're comparing small-ish images on a computer screen, not comparing good-sized prints. If you really want to know whether digital image quality is as good as film, compare 11x14" wet darkroom prints against inkjet prints. By many accounts digital has reached (or even surpassed) traditional materials in final image quality -- but looking at JPGs on a website won't really tell you that.

::Ari
Click to expand...

I agree completely, Ari. But there are many folks here that will yell bloody murder if you suggest that a digital camera-produced image could ever look as good as one produced by a Leica film camera.
 
Well I could be mistaken,

Well I could be mistaken,

Tuolumne said:
I am surprised that the GH1 has different "innards" than the G1. Could you document that anywhere? Panasonic certainly doesn't play that up in any of their promo materials.

/T
Click to expand...

And I do need to check my facts, but it seems to me that the GH1 sensor did not make it into the Olympus EP-1, or the Panasonic GF1, or possibly both. I think (again this needs to be confirmed) that if you want the GH-1 sensor, at this time it's only in the GH-1.
 
Nando said:
I considered the GH1 as a possible replacement for my SLR kit (that I use primarily for the rare macro and long telephoto shots) and also for its video capabilities. I really loved the prospect of recording video with my rangefinder lenses - my old 1935 50mm Summar in particular. However, I was completely shocked by the price. It is quite the increase over the regular G1! So I now plan to wait awhile and perhaps pick a used one up.

Have you tried shooting video with your M-mount lenses? I'm eager to find how the experience is like.
Click to expand...

I have shot some - I'll try to post a clip. It looks great on my computer, but I am a n00b.

Regarding price, the lens is priced at $850, so that accounts for a significant portion of the cost. It pretty good and silent in operation, so it is a nice video lens. But it s too slow.
 
Jamie Pillers said:
I agree completely, Ari. But there are many folks here that will yell bloody murder if you suggest that a digital camera-produced image could ever look as good as one produced by a Leica film camera.
Click to expand...

Clearly the call depends on the comparison parameters. For example (ad absurdum) a drum scan of a 4x5 neg shot on TMax 100 with a modern Schneider lens is going to look a lot crisper than a G1 shot at ISO 1600 with a 60 year old Summitar on it. But, all else being equal, a top quality digital print has the capacity to surpass a top quality gelatin silver print. Brooks Jensen has written in LensWork that, looking purely at resolution, the state of the art of digital book publishing printing beats darkroom printing, such that the ultimate instantiation of an artist's image may now be the digitally printed book, rather than the hand made gallery print.
Ari
 
I've been thinking of book presentation of my images much more these days. What with the great image capability of computers..er.. 'cameras', and all the great digital book publishing services on the web, it just makes a lot of sense. And I don't know about you but I really enjoy looking at other photographers' work in book form rather than waiting years for a show of their work to show up in town.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom