What's the fuss over the G1?

[splitimageview]

The purpose of the G1 for me, is multiple-fold:

1. It's discrete. It's not a huge full frame DSLR. People ignore it.
2. It's as quiet as an M6.
3. It's small, and light. Lenses take up much less volume. Anyone who uses M lenses knows how important this is. A 3 lens set with a D700 is far larger and heavier.
4. It complements all my other bodies as all the lenses will 'mount.'
5. Excellent IQ.
6. Articulating LCD enables additional discrete photo opportunities.
7. Can actually focus my vintage lenses.
8. Excellent EVF, 100% view, bright when ambient isn't.

I don't care about crop factor. I have no bias against 70/2 Summicrons, or 100/1.4 Summiluxes, or 42/2.8 Biogons.

 

[back alley]

Haha good point.

For me, the three big issues with M4/3 are crop factor, crop factor and crop factor. I only own two M-mount lenses (35mm and 50mm), neither of which would be useful to me at 2x crop. So, I'm left to buy into a new system.

don't discount a 70mm lens, i love the focal length even though i might not use it as much as a wider fov.
and my 50 sonnar makes a very nice and very fast 100mm lens.

 

[back alley]

Due to ability to adapt nearly everly still camera lens there, the G1 is gear whore's dream (*). The 2x crop for them is not an obstacle since the purpose of exercise is to mount all those lenses rather than take actual pictures.

* This in no way or form implies that aforementioned camera owned exclusively by gear whores.

'rather than take actual pictures' is a fairly insulting line.
look at my flickr and look at some of my non photos.
i already have 4 zeiss m mount lenses so all it cost me was the rice of an adapter, my ONLY adapter as i am not an adapter kind of guy normally. i prefer simple and unencumbered.

if anything, the g1 has me wanting to be out there and shooting more than i have been recently. it's a fun camera so maybe some of the old grumps around here can't relate.

joe

 

[pbhome]

For me, it is the first time that I can have my RF, and a G1, and they share the same set of lens.

This save me a lot of weight when I want to travel light.

-PB

 

[nightfly]

I have to say with the crop factor, the sharing lenses argument seems totally ridiculous.

I mean I've got a 35mm Cron because I want a 35mm lens. When it becomes a 70mm lens, it's not really the same thing. I have to buy another lenses to get me to the 35mm equivalent . I've gained a very nice tele I guess but if I don't need a nice tele, it doesn't really help me.

Clearly I'm not the market. When they've got a smaller body that looks less like a DSLR and a fast prime (2.8 or less) in the 12mm to 17mm range (24-35 equivalent), I'll start caring. That seems to be a year or two out.

 

[splitimageview]

It's only ridiculous if you choose it to be so. The G1 isn't for everyone. No such camera is.

I don't begrudge anyone using any gear however they want, I don't call such use 'ridiculous.' If it produces images you like, that's all that matters.

I will add that to make a smaller version would give up features that I really like, such as the large articulating LCD. If I want something any tinier, I'll stick a Pen F in my pocket. As far as looking like a DSLR, I don't particularly care what it looks like, rather, what the images look like.

I too hope either Pana or Oly brings out more fast primes! I believe they will.

 

[George S.]

I have been wrong before, but I don't get the warm and fuzzy feeling that the G1/ Micro 4/3rds system is going to take the photo world by storm.

On the one hand, we have relative photo newbies who have always lived with a digital crop factor of one kind or another, who take to the micro 4/3rds without complaint... and we have the leica glass aficianados who like the ability to use said glass on a digital even with the crop factor and VF limitations factored in.

The two groups are two very different groups, and the former represent more of the future of photography buyers.

So, other than those that want a poor man's M8, where's the BIG reason to use a micro 4/3rds over a 'regular' 4/3rds system like the Olympus E-510? After the adapter crowd buys the micro 4/3 and are out of the picture, the two 4/3 formats will be competing with each other for the future digital SLR sales.

I also see a pattern here at RFF... of those that bought the G1, I see two groups- the gearheads who buy and maybe sell every new thing that comes along (the "gotta have it" guys) ... and also the more well-heeled members who have the $$$ to play with anything they want to.... maybe that's just the cross section of people we have here at RFF....?
no offense intended to any group......

 

[Nando]

I only use my 35mm SLR for macro and telephoto. When the G1 hit the market, I never even considered it as a replacement for my M-kit but I did see it as a way to extend the capabilities of my M system by giving it extra reach and perhaps closer focussing capabilities. In other words, it would replace the 35mm SLR. Paired with a my 50f1.4 or my 90f2.8, it would give me plenty of reach and also a relatively large aperture. How close can you focus an M-lens with a G1?

I handled the G1 a number of times at the local Panasonic dealer and I very much liked the EVF. I'm not too fond of the SLR-looks but that's not a big deal. I'm a bit concerned about the mount and the strap-lugs. I'm not sure if I would be confident enough have the camera hanging off my neck or shoulder with a heavy (and expensive) chrome Leica lens on it. I'm not sure if the G1 would fit into the outer pockets of my M-Classics bag (just with the M-adapter and no lens attached). It would be a plus if it could.

I'm currently waiting to see what Olympus comes out with before plunging for the G1.

What I'd like to see is a micro 4/3rds camera that is like the Panasonic LC1 in terms of its user-interface but smaller and with the EVF of a G1.

 

[nightfly]

I wasn't saying the camera was ridiculous or the people who buy it or the photos coming out of them, only the notion that the fact that you can mount other lenses with a 2x crop factor and claim that they are somehow interchangeable.

When a 35mm becomes a 70mm, it's simple a totally different type of lens. It doesn't really add to the appeal of the camera from the point of view of someone who wants a 35 since they still have to figure another way to fill that space and there isn't a lot out there that does it (fast and wide).

 

[Colman]

A G1, with (say) a CV40/1.4 might make a nice tool for low-light portraits of a type I quite like doing. It might also make a nice digital tool for when I don't feel like packing a full digital kit as well as an RF kit.

I'm also waiting to see what else comes out, but the class of camera opens up new possibilities for extending the usefulness of existing kit.

 

[Colman]

When a 35mm becomes a 70mm, it's simple a totally different type of lens. It doesn't really add to the appeal of the camera from the point of view of someone who wants a 35 since they still have to figure another way to fill that space and there isn't a lot out there that does it (fast and wide).

No, but if you think a digital 70 is a useful thing to have, then that's another matter.

 

[JCdeR]

80% of my shots are 75 - 200mm in which case the G1 makes a lot of sense, try focussing a 90' cron in dusky light....

If into wides the G1 is definately not such a good choice.

I picked it up rather a "play-thing" It look good, light and the IQ seemed of reasonable quality. I use it daily now, the 50 lux and 75 cron on one and the kit lens on the other.... the kit lens is rather good, but slow.

For nice wides I use the DP-1 or the GRD-II whichever come handy.

I think the G1 has taken the world by surprise and people are still figuring out what happened, it's not an expensive Holga... it actually serves a purpose, and the purpose it serves will be increased by the introduction of fast primes.

The EWF is rubbish compared to that of a M6.... rubbish optically that is, it does allow one to focus fast and sharp and in most light conditions, unlike the M6. Metering is much better I would say, it has Spot metering. It's relatively fast.... I can't imagine any one not liking this camera, price is good... ok RED is a bit off... but the black ones are ok and the blue ones are well .... ok too.

Best of all though it will basically fit any legacy lens you currently have in your collection....

And as mentioned before the maximum depreciation is a third of the price of a glass Leica M8 lcd cover .... go figure....

 

[Tuolumne]

I wasn't saying the camera was ridiculous or the people who buy it or the photos coming out of them, only the notion that the fact that you can mount other lenses with a 2x crop factor and claim that they are somehow interchangeable.

When a 35mm becomes a 70mm, it's simple a totally different type of lens. It doesn't really add to the appeal of the camera from the point of view of someone who wants a 35 since they still have to figure another way to fill that space and there isn't a lot out there that does it (fast and wide).

Yes, when a 35 becomes a 70 it is a totally different type of lens. I needed a 75 to shoot with today, instead of using my Summarit 75mm I took my CV 35mm f1.7. It was a tad shorter (70mm instead of 75mm) but much faster, f1.7 instead of f2.5. It was interchangeable on the G1, but interchangeable with the 75mm Summarit, not the 35mm f1.7.

Similarly, I have a Biogon 21mm f2.8. As it turns out, I don't use super-wides very much. But on the G1 it becomes a 42mm (almost a 35mm to me). That I find very useful. I took the 21mm Biogon with me today and used it. So it was interchangeable with a nice 35mm-50mm M-mount lens, but not itself as a 21mm lens.

I think that's the way you need to think of "interchangeable" on the G1.

/T

 

[Al Patterson]

80% of my shots are 75 - 200mm in which case the G1 makes a lot of sense, try focussing a 90' cron in dusky light....

If into wides the G1 is definately not such a good choice.

I picked it up rather a "play-thing" It look good, light and the IQ seemed of reasonable quality. I use it daily now, the 50 lux and 75 cron on one and the kit lens on the other.... the kit lens is rather good, but slow.

For nice wides I use the DP-1 or the GRD-II whichever come handy.

I think the G1 has taken the world by surprise and people are still figuring out what happened, it's not an expensive Holga... it actually serves a purpose, and the purpose it serves will be increased by the introduction of fast primes.

The EWF is rubbish compared to that of a M6.... rubbish optically that is, it does allow one to focus fast and sharp and in most light conditions, unlike the M6. Metering is much better I would say, it has Spot metering. It's relatively fast.... I can't imagine any one not liking this camera, price is good... ok RED is a bit off... but the black ones are ok and the blue ones are well .... ok too.

Best of all though it will basically fit any legacy lens you currently have in your collection....

And as mentioned before the maximum depreciation is a third of the price of a glass Leica M8 lcd cover .... go figure....

An FD 34-105 F3.5 zoom would be an excellect complement to the G1 kit lens, and 35mm and 40mm M lenses become portrait lenses. What's not to like?

Well for me, the current price is out of my current budget.

 

[noimmunity]

I also see a pattern here at RFF... of those that bought the G1, I see two groups- the gearheads who buy and maybe sell every new thing that comes along (the "gotta have it" guys) ... and also the more well-heeled members who have the $$$ to play with anything they want to.... maybe that's just the cross section of people we have here at RFF....?
no offense intended to any group......

There is another pattern here at RFF that should be mentioned: the one among those who have NOT purchased the G1. Some go for vicarious pleasure, some go for doubt and even aggressive challenges to those who have bought one.

 

[gdi]

Can someone who has used one of these things please comment on shutter lag compared to a normal DSLR?

The shutter lag is really no big deal, IMO. It is the long VF blackout and occasional motion artifacts that is irritating to me.

But when you get used to it, the EVF is really easy to use and practical - but put it in BW mode and its kinda disconcerting to bring to your eye as the color disappears from the world before you!

 

[benlees]

On the one hand, we have relative photo newbies who have always lived with a digital crop factor of one kind or another, who take to the micro 4/3rds without complaint... and we have the leica glass aficianados who like the ability to use said glass on a digital even with the crop factor and VF limitations factored in.

The two groups are two very different groups, and the former represent more of the future of photography buyers.

Could this be is a marketing success for a new product? It is too early to know for sure I will agree.

I imagine Panasonic sees micro 4/3 as the future. Despite the G1's hefty price I am sure future offerings will be cheaper, especially when Olympus enters the market. As they have stated, they are after the mass market and the niche market, not just the niche market. For now, appealing to more than one segment of the market must be encouraging.

The question is whether the G1 can be a success without cracking the mass market.

Not too many people are going to buy new Leica (M mount- not the collaboration ones) lenses to put on there their G1. The other way around for sure is already a healthy market. Would Pentax even be around were it not for backwards (and a little sideways) compatibility? Who knows? Only reason I bought one, oh, and good quality at a good price. But they struggle.

The quality is there, I gather this from others posts and reviews as I don't own one, but, and assuming from the blue and red designs they want to be 'different'- which is to say not Canon or Nikon, their marketing could lead them astray in terms of a lack of an identity. Can a camera just be a 'camera' or does it have to be a 'p&s', a 'dslr', or a 'M4/3'?

It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

 

[Wiyum]

...There was an Oly 410 on the shelf-compared them in hand, and the Olympus E-410 is smaller than a G1. And with 2 lenses, is about half the price.

I though the new format was going to give us great images in a package smaller than an SLR. While the G1 seemed very nice, it isn't small.

So besides being a nice camera, where's the breakthrough?

While I haven't compared the two side-by-side myself, the listed specs place the G1 as being smaller than the 410 in all three dimensions. I don't want to outright say you're mistaken, but that's what the numbers say (and I readily admit that they're often misleading).

But I have messed around with a G1, and I certainly found it to be pleasantly small. Not pocketable small, but small nonetheless. And the viewfinder is "large" compared to any FourThirds (and indeed, any APS-C) camera as well. The EVF solution is perhaps a bit of a compromise, but it is a strikingly good EVF, and given its "size" and the fact that it can gain-up to be bright in dim situations, it certainly allows for some interesting things.

The G1 can be had, on amazon, with both extant lenses, for less than $1000. While that isn't necessarily cheap, for a 12MP camera of such innovation and quality, and two optically-stabilized lenses with an EFL of 28-400 (!), and a total size and weight that is remarkably low (larger than a 410 or not, the kit is small, and the lenses are certainly small), that seems like a pretty nice deal to me.

Still, the G1 follows legacy SLR design cues, and is perhaps larger than some had hoped. Perhaps the EVF needed the room; perhaps the designers discovered that a smaller camera that looked like an SLR (clearly a goal of the team) didn't feel right in the hand. Who knows.

But the micro FourThirds format is fascinating to me because it seems like such uncharted territory. Physics demonstrates that, all things being equal, the format *can* have some rather small lenses, shaming even the Pentax DA Limiteds and rivaling Leica's M primes (this due to the reduced flange depth). The mirrorless and digital aspects mean that the system (with the same lenses) can have many different form factors among the cameras. An SLR-like design has been shown. A smaller, LCD-only body is certainly possible. An electronically-coupled rangefinder should theoretically be possible (though I question the lag that the electronics might introduce). Form factors heretofore unimagined could emerge. They sky's the limit. Everything short of a design that needs a reflex viewfinder seems to be on the table and up for grabs.

Meanwhile, the format is extremely open. The format makes no specification of aspect ratio, just image circle, so we may see mFT cameras with 3:2 or 16:9 or 1:1 sensors. A TLR-inspired body with a 1:1 sensor and an LCD hidden away in a waistlevel finder is entirely achievable, in a system that shares lenses with a compact, LCD-only 3:2 sensor body and the G1's 4:3, SLR-inspired design. It's the wild west out there, and it offers exciting possibilities.

I'm actually excited to see Panasonic involved in the format, because after years of finding their way, they've recently demonstrated (with the G1 and LX3) that they have at least some idea what their customers might want and they now have sensor design that performs well, and is likely to improve. If Olympus can deliver on the small prototype they demonstrated, and looks enough to their Pen heritage, they'll do exciting things as well. I think more companies should get on board. While I think it would be a mistake for Leica to market their own body, I think (and this forum has perhaps demonstrated) that a set of Leica-designed (if not manufactured) primes for the format could do very well. Who knows who else might jump in.

The existing products, the G1 and its two lenses, strike me as a nice kit, with obvious value. But they don't excite me. The option to use M-glass is great, but I think that those on the forum that think that that's all there is to the format are missing the point. Yes, the 2x crop factor on M-glass is near insane for the kind of shooting that most RF users do. But the possibilities of the format, with native glass, dovetail nicely with what RF shooters like most in a camera. I'm not saying that all (or any) of these things will see the light of day. But all of them are possible, and to me, that's a really exciting thing. I can't wait to see what develops.

 

[splitimageview]

Now you've done it, there is nothing more to argue about.

 

[aad]

I don't know about numbers, but I held the cameras side by side, there is no question the E410 is smaller.

The G1 with lens was about $750, the E410 with 2 lenses was $380.

Yes the G1 seems lovely.