Pavel+
Established
I had a G-1; for a week. Very nice cam but if that is the new Rangefinder then my pickup truck is my new motorcycle. There is simply too much different in the details and what makes a rangefinder is lost.
I'm not saying it is inferior ... but I am saying that my experience was very different. I could go on about a hundred details but the fact of it not being mechanical is something that broke any analogy for me. I do think however if it is not about the sensual aspect nor the tradition we hold dear ... then it is a decent substitute for RF. Worse in some ways ... better in others.
The depth of field at normal framing (normal for each subject type) is waaay different with the sensor, that is realy 1/4 the surface area. That too is great for some types of shooting - a disaster for other types.
Where I found it next to useless was with portraits. Great dof or greater dof. Uggg. That 1.4 lens ... gives results that seem two or three stops smaller. So I would need a 24 f 1.4 ... for a normal and a 35 f 1.4 to substitute for a film RF with a 50 f 2.8 and a 75 2.8.
The G-1 and its sucessor will likely be the new RF rangefinder for the next generation. Of course they won't be doing anything as primitive as snapping photos with it. No, the G-4 or whatever it will be called will do 24 fps 16 megpixel video capture and the included software will have "pleasant composition" software included to help find that "killer" shot.
That will be the new way for the new ones ... but this old timer ... just didn't get that rangefinder feel. Not in the least. To replace the old rangefinder, it may be necessary to keep the rangefinder in the machine. Imagine that!
I'm not saying it is inferior ... but I am saying that my experience was very different. I could go on about a hundred details but the fact of it not being mechanical is something that broke any analogy for me. I do think however if it is not about the sensual aspect nor the tradition we hold dear ... then it is a decent substitute for RF. Worse in some ways ... better in others.
The depth of field at normal framing (normal for each subject type) is waaay different with the sensor, that is realy 1/4 the surface area. That too is great for some types of shooting - a disaster for other types.
Where I found it next to useless was with portraits. Great dof or greater dof. Uggg. That 1.4 lens ... gives results that seem two or three stops smaller. So I would need a 24 f 1.4 ... for a normal and a 35 f 1.4 to substitute for a film RF with a 50 f 2.8 and a 75 2.8.
The G-1 and its sucessor will likely be the new RF rangefinder for the next generation. Of course they won't be doing anything as primitive as snapping photos with it. No, the G-4 or whatever it will be called will do 24 fps 16 megpixel video capture and the included software will have "pleasant composition" software included to help find that "killer" shot.
That will be the new way for the new ones ... but this old timer ... just didn't get that rangefinder feel. Not in the least. To replace the old rangefinder, it may be necessary to keep the rangefinder in the machine. Imagine that!
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Hi Bill,
Id say its Not the digicam of the future. If history teaching us anything is that there will be multiple attempts and ultimately an outlier will emerge. An example would be the memory chips from the 5" floppys to the flash drives today.
Paul