Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Thu Sep 18, 2014 12:18 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 212 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:03 am 
I decided against the E-410 and E-420 because their dynamic range isn't good. Dynamic range is a spec that's become important to me because I don't like the idea of blown highlights and skies. Of course, it's possible that poor dynamic range is inherent in the current 4/3rd sensors. I'm dying to read a review of the G1 to find out how good it really is.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:21 am 
The E-410 has a poor dynamic range but the E-420, E-520 and E3 have really improved in that area.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Micro 4/3
PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:23 pm 
qnz_78 wrote:
it seems that Panasonic has abandoned their regular 4/3rds efforts and I really hope that Olympus doesn't do the same. As an L1 user I this is sorta disheartening. I'm just hoping that my Leica 14-50mm F2.8-3.5 will be compatible since I'm not sure if this has the contrast based AF.
Also I noticed that it doesn't say "Leica" on the lens anymore, I guess they're not partnering with Leica on these lenses anymore.
I was really hoping that the size of the G1 would be like that of the FZs and Canon's S series. If its going to be just slightly smaller than the E420 it might be wiser to stick with the E420 for the reason that there's more lenses right now thats available for it.
And ofcourse, I'm curious to find out how much this thing will be hehe

Keep in mind, this isn't just another new format. What this is really about is eliminating the old buggywhip mechanical-mirror camera entirely and replacing with an all-electronic camera instead.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:54 pm 
DPreview found that the E-420 and E-520 also have limited dynamic range, though perhaps not as much as the earlier versions. One of the things that stopped me from getting either of those cameras is that they cannot take power adapters -- they have to be run entirely from batteries -- but most of my photography is done in a studio. That's the most idiotic omission of an important feature I have ever seen on a camera.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:26 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 9975
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand
Well, it's a new sensor in the G1, so until any of us test it, we can't say!

There's the fear two extra megapixels will neatively impact noise and dynamic range, but there's the hope they've made more efficient use of the surface area... we'll have to wait and see!

But of course it will still be a big improvement over a small compact sensor.

PS - have you noticed how different people view the G1 and Micro Four Thirds as either:

1: A small DSLR without the mirror and OVF.

2: A large compact with a large sensor and interchangeable lenses.

Gordon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:51 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7937
Location: Germany
Even after thinking about it, I'm not convinced:
- people loving "compact" would like to have a compact super-zoom lens on that body. But the large sensor makes it impossible to beat the "bridge/super-zoom"-cameras in compactness
- people loving "high quality" will think: "Why the heck did they leave out a quality ovf and don't built it much smaller than the Oly 420?"
The only positive in my eyes is the missing noise, mirrorslap and electro-mechanics. But I don't think I'd value this higher than the missing ovf.

Btw. Gordon: Why do you categorize these cameras as DSLRs? They are no longer "reflex"! So these belong in the "Compacts and super-zooms" section, don't you think?

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:36 pm 
neilm16 wrote:
It must be remembered that the whole point of panasonic developing the new micro 4/3 is to attract those that currently use compact cameras some 92% of the camera market approx... into discovering the world of improved image quality.


Hi neilm16,

It may be the goal but IMO it will end up being popular among many DSLR users.


neilm16 wrote:
I do not think anyone who is already in the DSLR world will be itching too get hold of the G1 as it doesnt offer anything above what they probably already have or could have with an Olympus 420..


Well, I am..

The G1 is about the same size as the E-420, but the lenses made for the G1 are smaller. Actually I'm saving for the ZD 7-14mm but after seeing the size of the new MicroFT version, I need to think twice about the purchase. The 20mm f1.7 is also incredibly small. The G1 will also provide a much better liveview experience (any E-330 user will tell you how much he/she loves the Liveview A mode) than the E-420, and it won't have the unbearable shutter sound of the E-420.

I'm waiting for an Olympus version which I expect to be about the same size as the G1 but with integrated IS (the Olympus way). For me, it would be better than the E-420 in every way except the absence of the OVF & Phase Detect AF, which I think I can live with.

Best Regards,
Tony


Last edited by chickenflavoredchips on Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:49 pm 
Thomas wrote:
Why do you categorize these cameras as DSLRs? They are no longer "reflex"! So these belong in the "Compacts and super-zooms" section, don't you think?

The mirror is not the essential aspect separating these cameras from the compacts. It was just the originally used technical solution to provide a through-the-lens view of the subject. The higher quality interchangeable lenses were another part of the concept but basically (D)SLR is used as a designation for higher quality cameras because they usually used these techniques.

The EVF is still a TTL view finder and it still uses higher quality interchangeable optics and a larger size sensor that is primarily designed for quality and less for size and economics.

Ben
_________________
When in doubt..... Press the shutter.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:51 pm 
Thomas wrote:
- people loving "compact" would like to have a compact super-zoom lens on that body. But the large sensor makes it impossible to beat the "bridge/super-zoom"-cameras in compactness
- people loving "high quality" will think: "Why the heck did they leave out a quality ovf and don't built it much smaller than the Oly 420?"


Thomas,

In my humble opinion:

There are people who like both compactness and image quality (not the high quality you mentioned).

No single compact super-zoom camera in current market can match the image quality of the G1 with the 14-150mm super zoom. Besides you can change the lens, for example, taking the 20mm f1.7 for a promenade at night.

I think you've never used an E-420. I've owned both an E-410 and an E-520 and I have to say the OVF is pitifully small (miles behind the D300's). The EVF of the G1 is however reported having the size as a FF camera!! This is the advantage of the EVF, it can be made into any size you want. Plus, 60fps is faster than what a human eye can catch.

I absolutely love the bright 100% OVF of my E-1 but I know the EVF will be the future as it only gets better and better while there's not much left for the OVF to improve.

Just my two cents.. obviously

Best Regards,
Tony


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Many of us
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:56 am 
Many of us out here have used the mid-sized cameras like the Nikon 8800 and Pana FZ50, and the micro 4/3 seems like a natural progression from that. I would advise anyone who has a DSLR and interchangeable lenses who's also looking at 4/3 to make sure they know where this is going in the next few months, since there's a huge potential to get stuck with dead-end products. The EVIL concept will continue, but you can bet there will be a big shakeout when Nikon and Canon jump in.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 6:34 am 
This is an interesting conversation.

To me, the M4/3 format represents a win-win technology for consumers. As someone who has used just point-and-shoot cameras, I'm completely satisfied with contrast-detect AF -- it has always worked just fine for me (and I have never found it slow). I have wanted to upgrade to a camera with better image quality for a long time, but DSLRs have so many drawbacks. They are big. Live view on DSLRs is clunky (so far). And they are noisy. Not only is the body of the G1 smaller, but the lenses are smaller. I look at pictures of DSLRs with zoom lenses attached and imagine that I would have to join a gym so I could lift them.

There's one thing that no one has considered yet: the megapixel race is eventually going to make small sensors obsolete. Manufacturers may be able to fit 12 megapixels on a small sensor (albeit with a lot of noise), but there is a limit to how many megapixels they can cram in. The 4/3rds sensor gives manufacturers breathing room to squeeze in more pixels. I have read that it is 4 times the size of a small sensor. That means they could cram in 20 megapixels with reasonably low noise levels, and 40 megapixels with noise-reduction technology. In fact, this may be the real reason that Panasonic and Olympus developed the M4/3 system -- they saw that small sensors were reaching their limit.

I can imagine the market evolving into three groups: DLSRs at the top (for professionals), compacts with small sensors at the bottom (for people who really want a very small camera), and the middle occupied by M4/3 models. To me, M4/3 cameras look like the wave of the future.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: evolution
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:44 pm 
Caleb Murdock wrote:
I can imagine the market evolving into three groups: DLSRs at the top (for professionals), compacts with small sensors at the bottom (for people who really want a very small camera), and the middle occupied by M4/3 models. To me, M4/3 cameras look like the wave of the future.

There will be no evolution with DSLR's at the top. DSLR's are going extinct, like buggies, and watches that require winding. This is a wakeup call for people to evaluate their lens inventory, so they don't get stuck with things they can't sell.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:23 pm 
We are certainly polarised on this, but I am convinced that there is a substantial market for this sort of camera. I had a film SLR for 40 years, but went for a bridge camera rather than a DSLR because of the smaller size and the convenience of a wide range zoom. But the picture noise particularly does annoy me, and the prospect of a camera with a bigger sensor but smaller lenses is very inviting. The key points for me will be the size of the 14 - 140 lens, the picture quality and the usability of the EVF.
Incidently, it is right to group these cameras with dSLRs and not compacts. If it looks like an SLR, feels like and SLR, and does the same things, who cares whether the reflex function is electronic or optical.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: polarized
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:56 pm 
ashepherd wrote:
We are certainly polarised on this.......
.......if it looks like an SLR, feels like and SLR, and does the same things, who cares whether the reflex function is electronic or optical.

First, there's no cause for polarization. The trend away from moving parts and towards electronics is beyond dispute. Secondly, everyone should care about moving parts that are expensive and subject to breakdown. That's purely logical.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 7:32 pm 
ashepherd wrote:
Incidently, it is right to group these cameras with dSLRs and not compacts. If it looks like an SLR, feels like and SLR, and does the same things, who cares whether the reflex function is electronic or optical.


Actually, this camera looks like a DSLR only because they styled it that way (but also because of the detachable lens). Perhaps they can call them DSLs instead of DSLRs (that would be "digital single lens" cameras). That's probably the best solution, since DSL looks similar to DSLR, signalling to people that these are more serious cameras than point-and-shoot cameras.

I was so excited about the Sigma DP1 because it was going to give me good image quality in a small package, but that camera turned out to have serious problems. Now I'm excited about the G1.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 212 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group