Camera Labs

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.

The E-410 has a poor dynamic range but the E-420, E-520 and E3 have really improved in that area.

_________________
Graham
Flickr

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.

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.

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

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

Hi neilm16,

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




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

_________________
GALLERY

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.

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

_________________
GALLERY

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.