Panasonic G1 previewed, first Micro Four Thirds product

[ElFenix]

http://www.dpreview.com/Previews/PanasonicG1/

Simon: we first saw the G1 back in the summer when we visited Panasonic in Japan, and - considering this is a 'version 1.0' product we have been hugely impressed by what a mature and 'sorted' product it is, and by what Micro Four Thirds promises for future camera designs. The G1 is a conservative product to launch the new system with, but it's also a very exciting product that could well change the game for the entry-level DSLR market. If nothing else it offers first time buyers a genuine alternative.

The pre production units we've played with are not fitted with 'final' versions of the viewfinder, but even so we've been very impressed with what we've seen so far. There's still the slight color 'tearing' if you move your eye too quickly (something common to all field sequential viewfinders we've tried), but the sharpness, resolution, refresh rate, brightness and color are excellent. The real revelation is when you try it next to the Olympus E-420 (using our tried and tested method of putting a camera up to each eye); the G1's viewfinder image looks huge (it's at least 50% larger), and a lot brighter with a standard zoom attached. There's no doubt that electronic viewfinders aren't going to replace optical reflex finders for all applications in the near future (the display gets quite noisy in very low light, and it will inevitably impact on shutter lag), but this is a real move in the right direction - it's perfectly possible to check critical focus using the EVF, and there seems to be very little video lag.

i'll bet that's pretty nice

The good news is that - even in the prototypes we've tried - Panasonic's engineers have kept true to their word; the focus is not only astonishingly fast for a contrast detect system; it's easily as fast as any conventional SLR in this class. And unlike even most mid-range SLRs you get 23 area auto AF and the ability to place a single AF point almost anywhere in the frame - and that's before you throw in Panasonic's remarkable subject tracking AF and Face Detection. I'm not convinced it's quite as good in continuous focus as it is in single shot, but until we've got a final production model I'll just say that Panasonic seems to have overcome the main problem currently associated with using live view on an SLR; focus speed.

fantastic



notably missing: cost, video mode, and leica. (edit 750 euros with 1 lens, $835 worth in yen)



i get what they're saying about the conservative japanese camera market wanting a camera that looks like an SLR. however, i hope they come out with something a bit more minolta CLE looking shortly.



edit: imaging-resource preview

On that topic, a senior Panasonic product planner who briefed us on the camera said that they actually could make even smaller bodies using the Micro Four Thirds standard, but they were concerned that US users in particular would find them too small.

so was it the japanese market or the US market they were concerned about?

Finally the the EVF's optics give an effective magnification of about 0.7x relative to a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera.

that's actually... huge. 1Ds and D3 sized, if that is correct.

 

[Deadtrees]

This looks quite interesting. In fact, I really like it but not enough to buy one.
Once better display technology than LCD matures(possibly OLED?), I think this can be really better than current SLR system.

 

[ElFenix]

the viewfinder has more in common with DLP than with LCD.

 

[randomlinh]

interesting. I still want to see something along the lines of a DP-1 though.

 

[996GT2]

Sizewise, it's still on the large side...larger than Panasonic's super-zooms like the FZ8 and FZ18. If they could fit the micro 4/3 sensor into a more compact frame, then it would probably become more popular.

 

[jpeyton]

Nice!

Not small enough for my taste; I want a flatter body, like a miniaturized E-420, complete with a micro 4/3rd 25mm pancake.

 

[OdiN]

So they still calling this an SLR?

Regardless, EVF = suck.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Nice!

Not small enough for my taste; I want a flatter body, like a miniaturized E-420, complete with a micro 4/3rd 25mm pancake.

panasonic has a 20 f/1.7 on the roadmap. the rest of the lenses on the map are zoom, including a 7-14 f/4 and a 14-140 f/4~5.6 O.I.S. HD (a video lens, maybe?)

Originally posted by: OdiN
So they still calling this an SLR?

Regardless, EVF = suck.

World?s First Full-time Live View Digital Interchangeable Lens Camera

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Sizewise, it's still on the large side...larger than Panasonic's super-zooms like the FZ8 and FZ18. If they could fit the micro 4/3 sensor into a more compact frame, then it would probably become more popular.

it's smaller than an FZ50, which is what people were expecting this thing to replace. then again, the superzoom lens isn't out yet. but, as i said, i'd prefer something a bit more minolta CLEish.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Slap an 14-200 f/2.8 lens on there, would be a real blow to superzooms. Might need a movie mode, though, to capture a certain segment on the superzoom market.

 

[OdiN]

It might be an alternative to a small P&S depending on how small it is. Except that lens won't tuck itself away.

But I hate EVF's. If it's just LCD on the back, cool, but if it has a viewfinder, I'd prefer it be optical.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: OdiN
It might be an alternative to a small P&S depending on how small it is. Except that lens won't tuck itself away..

Not small enough, IMO. Measurements:

124mm x 84mm x 45mm

Compare to my Pentax K100D, which is not as dainty as the most entry-level Canikon:

129mm x 91mm x 71mm

Except for the thickness, no advantage there. It's lighter, and the lenses are smaller, but... meh.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Slap an 14-200 f/2.8 lens on there, would be a real blow to superzooms. Might need a movie mode, though, to capture a certain segment on the superzoom market.

14-200mm f/2.8?

Do you realize how ridiculously expensive and heavy a lens like that would be? To put that on a small camera like the G1 completely erases any size advantage it had before. You might as well just go out and buy a regular DSLR instead and get better high ISO performance and a real viewfinder.

The closest lens Olympus makes is the 90-250mm f/2.8, which costs $5500 and weighs 7 pounds...for the same $5500 you could get a Nikon D700, 24-70mm f/2.8, and a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Slap an 14-200 f/2.8 lens on there, would be a real blow to superzooms. Might need a movie mode, though, to capture a certain segment on the superzoom market.

14-200mm f/2.8?

Do you realize how ridiculously expensive and heavy a lens like that would be? To put that on a small camera like the G1 completely erases any size advantage it had before. You might as well just go out and buy a regular DSLR instead and get better high ISO performance and a real viewfinder.

The closest lens Olympus makes is the 90-250mm f/2.8, which costs $5500 and weighs 7 pounds...for the same $5500 you could get a Nikon D700, 24-70mm f/2.8, and a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR.

Never said Olympus had to make it. It could be marketed for well under a grand, although that is expensive, and true, I didn't think about weight. Lenses created specifically for 4/3 - not APS-C lens adapted for 4/3, as most 3rd party lenses are - could be made more cheaply and lighter.

How about f/2.8-f/4.5?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle Lenses created specifically for 4/3 - not APS-C lens adapted for 4/3, as most 3rd party lenses are - could be made more cheaply and lighter.

they really haven't been, so far. other than the kit lenses, that is. and the kit lenses achieve a lot of their small size by being really slow. once you start setting up systems that capture equivalent images, that is, equivalent angle of view and depth of field, the lenses are usually bigger for 4/3. then again, you don't have to set up an equivalent system.


the kit lens is smaller for this than for a very similar 4/3 lens, despite the inclusion of IS in lens. but it's only smaller in barrel diameter. it's not significantly shorter. a lot of lenses are wide simply because the mount is wide, the glass doesn't require a barrel that wide.



edit: not to mention that with a telephoto group at the front end and a reverse telephoto group at the other end, a 14-200 would have some really nasty chromatic aberration, would probably have very flat contrast,, probably be soft all over unless you stop it down really far (and then what is the point of fast glass?). just far too many compromises involved with regular slow superzooms to try to throw in speed as well.

 

[andylawcc]

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonicG1/page2.asp

so only three of the current Olympus 4/3 ZD lenses would have Auto Focus in the M 4/3 ?

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Jeff Keller over at DCResource is reporting that the Micro 4/3 lenses are "much more compact" than conventional 4/3 format.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Never said Olympus had to make it. It could be marketed for well under a grand..

an 18-200 f/2.8? Even as a micro 4/3's lens... that would still be insane.

the 2.8-4.5 sounds a little more reasonable

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Jeff Keller over at DCResource is reporting that the Micro 4/3 lenses are "much more compact" than conventional 4/3 format.

diameter is smaller. length is about the same.

Originally posted by: andylawcc
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonicG1/page2.asp

so only three of the current Olympus 4/3 ZD lenses would have Auto Focus in the M 4/3 ?

they must be playing with the firmware to cripple it a bit. it's the same as when the lenses wouldn't do contrast detect AF with live view. the lens is almost stupid in terms of autofocus, all the calculations are done in the camera and a signal for how far to move is sent to the lens.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Soooo, the body + lens is smaller, not that much smaller; it weighs less, but not that much less. It has an EVF, which many people don't like. There doesn't seem to be a killer lens for it. This isn't looking too good...

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Soooo, the body + lens is smaller, not that much smaller; it weighs less, but not that much less. It has an EVF, which many people don't like. There doesn't seem to be a killer lens for it. This isn't looking too good...

this is the first model, it's conservatively styled. none of us here have looked at the evf, so none of us are qualified to pass judgment on it. dpreview seems to like it.

the grip, the slr-like flash, the folding lcd, all make it much larger. and none of the cameras it's going head to head with have folding lcds. also, the evf sounds like it appears very large, which is another selling point.

hopefully that 20 f/1.7 model will come along with a model that is more compact. this was never going to be as small as canon's SD cameras, but the body itself could be as small as a canon G9. and the lenses could be the size of some of the old rangefinder lenses that don't have autofocus motors and auto aperture mechanisms.

heck, these first couple of lenses could be optically very similar to the olympus 14-42, which means they could be made more compact by removing retrofocal elements and just burying the lens into the body.

 

[andylawcc]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
heck, these first couple of lenses could be optically very similar to the olympus 14-42, which means they could be made more compact by removing retrofocal elements and just burying the lens into the body.

I thought and misread the first couple M4/3 from Panasonic were exactly the one Oly made, just shrunk in size to fit the m4/3 mount. Being wrong aside, since the zoom range is different, it also add O.I.S. (or IS/VR). Which perplex me a bit, I thought the whole selling point of the 4/3 system is to integrated IS into the BODY and not the lenses. I hope Olympus is going with the same route for it's m4/3

 

[ivan2]

this is a cutie. I bet the girls will be all over it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: andylawcc
I thought and misread the first couple M4/3 from Panasonic were exactly the one Oly made, just shrunk in size to fit the m4/3 mount. Being wrong aside, since the zoom range is different, it also add O.I.S. (or IS/VR). Which perplex me a bit, I thought the whole selling point of the 4/3 system is to integrated IS into the BODY and not the lenses. I hope Olympus is going with the same route for it's m4/3

olympus put IS in the body but it is definitely not part of the 4/3 spec. panasonic already had a lens-shift system from it's compacts and so has used that rather than developing/licensing new IP.


the selling point of 4/3 is the 'digital from the ground up' thing.

 

[andylawcc]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the selling point of 4/3 is the 'digital from the ground up' thing Ed: instead.

well, to me it was. That's why I chose Olympus over Canon and Nikon. That whole "from ground up" thing doesn't etice me a abit, that just mean Olympus has no prior experience in making DSLR and is playing catch up with CaNikon. However, I appreciate Oly implement IS in the body instead so its lenses don't have to and subsequently become cheaper (well, that went right out the window when it's 12-60 f/2.8-4.0 retails at $800 and 50mm f/2.0 marco at $450).
It was either Pentax or Olympus, and I chose oly for it's size and price ($510 for E-410 and two kit lenses).

 

[ElFenix]

HD movie version shown, along with movie lens, wide angle, and pancake fixed focal length lens