Panasonic has a very interesting camera!

[chillwolf]

Check out this review of Panasonic's new camera. It is the GH1, an interchageable lens, micro 4/3 camera. It has no mirror box and delivers live image at 60 fps in the viewfinder and LCD screen. Also captures HD video.
The reviewer was pretty impressed with this camera and it compared pretty well against the Nikon and Canon DSLRs. :scratch2:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCGH1/DMCGH1A.HTM

 

[Mark W.]

The biggest market hub bub with this camera is it's ability due to it's short registration distance to use virtually any mount lens from LTM (Screw mount Leica) to Canon FD Nikon F Pentax M-42 and K etc.

The Canon FD guys are going a little nuts as this is the first body capable of making some use of all of our manual focus lenses on a digital body.

It does have a 2X crop factor which means a 50mm f1.4 gives the same performance on this camera as a 100mm f1.4 would on a normal 35mm full frame camera.

Great for telephoto sucks for wide angle. Unless you would have a wide angle wider then 24mm you will have only std view and telephoto.

I have thought about picking one up since I have 38 Canon FD lenses. I figure the original zoom lens with the G-1 would do my wide angle work while the FD lenses could do great work in my bird photography.

 

[chillwolf]

Let us know if you get one Mark, and posts some pics shot with it.
I can get some nice shots using a Pentax adapter and K mount lenses on my Olympus DSLR. The Olympus DSLRs are 4/3 too. I have even used a lens reverser to do macro with it. Lots of fun trying out different combinations, especially when I put a 2X doubler on it.

 

[Mark W.]

A number of the Canon FD guys have been messing with this combo for quite a while now and so far the only real problem is that many of the wide angle lenses cause the light to hit the sensor at such an extreme angle that the corners and straight lines are very distorted.

If I do pick one up it won't be until near Christmas

 

[danj]

Which reduced-size sensor gives the best image quality - the 4/3 or the APS C used by everybody else?

From the reviews I've read it looks like the 4/3 has some noise issues.

Do ya think that full 24X36 sensors will become the norm within a few years as prices go down & smaller sensors are relegated to the better point-and-shoot models?

 

[Sam Cogley]

Most interesting. I have a pile of lenses that go with my dad's old AE-1, it would be nice to have a digital that can make use of them.

On that note, I also wish someone would finally develop the long-rumored "digital film" insert for the old SLR cameras. I would love to be able to use the same body for both digital and film work.

 

[Brian]

I have an Olympus E520, having traded in an E500 and when I got the 500 I tried several companies. Noise was evident on the Nikon, Canon and Sony models I tried in near equal amounts with the Olympus with no noise reduction. The differences only seemed to show up when noise reduction software was turned on.

Regardless of what the makers advertise as to the top ISO, I do not consider any really usable above 400 and more like 200 as I do not particularly care for noise reduction software. While companies have moved for the most part to 100 as the lower ISO range, I would like them to offer 10, 25, 50/60 as some though it may mean using faster prime lenses or at a minimum a tripod for more shots. In some ways we are still back in the good old days when film speeds were fast with the ASA range of 100.

 

[chillwolf]

Which reduced-size sensor gives the best image quality - the 4/3 or the APS C used by everybody else?

From the reviews I've read it looks like the 4/3 has some noise issues.

Do ya think that full 24X36 sensors will become the norm within a few years as prices go down & smaller sensors are relegated to the better point-and-shoot models?

Images from my Olympus DSLR look just as good as from my Nikon D70. I never shoot at high ISO, so noise is not a problem for me.

I don't know about full frame sensors becoming the norm too quickly even if the prices do come down. It will take about 24-25 mpg on a full frame sensor to make quality images. A lot of people may not want to have to deal with those size files and needing large memory cards to hold those files. Even being compressed these are still going to be pretty large to deal with.

 

[chillwolf]

I have an Olympus E520, having traded in an E500 and when I got the 500 I tried several companies. Noise was evident on the Nikon, Canon and Sony models I tried in near equal amounts with the Olympus with no noise reduction. The differences only seemed to show up when noise reduction software was turned on.

Regardless of what the makers advertise as to the top ISO, I do not consider any really usable above 400 and more like 200 as I do not particularly care for noise reduction software. While companies have moved for the most part to 100 as the lower ISO range, I would like them to offer 10, 25, 50/60 as some though it may mean using faster prime lenses or at a minimum a tripod for more shots. In some ways we are still back in the good old days when film speeds were fast with the ASA range of 100.

I'm with you on this one Brian. I also wish that lower ISO were available on DSLRs. The lowest I can shoot on the D70 is 200. :tears:
Also agree anything over 400 on most any DSLR is really not a viable option for me.

 

[Brian]

Full frame for me would be either 6x6 or at least 645.

 

[fmueller]

Which reduced-size sensor gives the best image quality - the 4/3 or the APS C used by everybody else?

It's difficult to discuss 'image quality' since quality is such a subjective issue, but APS-C holds a huge market share, including many professional users. Quite a few pros these days shoot full frame for wide angle work, but keep an APS-C body on hand for tele shots - sports, birding and so on. 4/3 is a niche market, and I doubt that will ever change.

Do ya think that full 24X36 sensors will become the norm within a few years as prices go down & smaller sensors are relegated to the better point-and-shoot models?

If the only reason to maintain APS-C was lower price, this was bound to happen sooner or later, but APS-C has advantages - real or perceived - over full frame for tele work. The tele end is more important than wide angle for many people - sports photographers and birders, but also many beginners such as soccer moms and little league dads. I believe APS-C is here to stay.

I never shoot at high ISO.

With my Canon Rebel XT, I use ISO 1600 for about 90% of my photography. Using flash or other supplementary lighting often isn't feasible for me, and I need fast shutter speeds while maintaining a good depth of field. In addition to instant feedback and instant results, for me dramatically improved low light capabilities are the biggest advantage of digital over film - I used to shoot Fuji Velvia 50 for most of my photography and Sensia 400 for low light work. Here are two examples taken with an APS-C body (Canon Rebel XT) at ISO 1600:

Frank

 

[mulester7]

.....hmmm, it would appear that millions and millions of mega-pixels make for little grain at higher iso's, but what is the level of visible difference?....is something lost somewhere else using 1600iso?....might someone have some "comparable" digital shots A-B'ing high and low iso's?.....

 

[Brian]

www.dpreview.com

Look at some of the reviews here and you'll see the iso comparison and other tests. Not sure some of the observations and conclusions are more for maybe a new group of persons too focused (excuse the pun) on the technical minutia. Some of it is really good.