Poll - what is it then?

[Damien_Demolder]

Panasonic says the new Micro Four Thirds Lumix DMC-G1 is the camera that spans the gap between the digital compact and the DSLR. It's supposed to appeal to those who think DSLRs are too big and complicated, but with all the control of a DSLR and an interchangable lens system it's easy to become confused over what the camera actually is.

Head to the home page to vote on: What do you think the Panasonic Lumix G1 really is?

And if you think you could do with a bit more information before you answer, read Angela's test of the camera in this week's magazine (on sale Tuesday 9th December)

Thanks for taking part.

Damien

[TimF]

I don't know whether to vote in this one, as I'd like to see the camera in the flesh as it were. Handling any item of photographic equipment tells you so much more than even the most erudite printed review can.

Sticking with the G1, I don't think I fully appreciated just how small the camera is until I watched the size comparison video at the foot of Michael Reichmann's review on Luminous Landscape. Given the existence of adapters for the G1 to allow Leica M lenses to be fitted (amongst others) perhaps that shows how dumb I am!

From what I've seen to date, Panasonic do appear to have got it right with this and the LX-3 (also known to Red Dot cultists as the DLux4). Hmmmm.

[GeoffR]

Its a range finder without the range finder or a reflex without the reflex so it is a "without". Equally its a bitza, bits a this and bits a that. I don't know what to call it, it takes the worst bit of a compact and one of the good bits of a range finder or SLR and seems to come up with a camera that pleases nobody.

So what is then?

[Fen]

A - A marketing ploy

[spinno]

Its a range finder without the range finder or a reflex without the reflex so it is a "without". Equally its a bitza, bits a this and bits a that. I don't know what to call it, it takes the worst bit of a compact and one of the good bits of a range finder or SLR and seems to come up with a camera that pleases nobody.

So what is then?

..er..a bit of a mongrel then...

[daft_biker]

Where's the 'girl's camera' option

Wouldn't mind having a shot of one with a nice 50mm equiv on it myself

[TimF]

Its a range finder without the range finder or a reflex without the reflex so it is a "without".

Like the Contax G2 was a "rangefinder without the rangefinder"? I don't recall any slagging of that camera on those grounds (other than from the purblind), so what is the argument here? In some ways its a modern day viewfinder camera - like the Contax G2 perhaps? Yes, an optical viewfinder would have been nicer (though I haven't seen the one on the G1 it must be said again), but if that meant it would be no smaller than a regular DSLR there would be little point.

seems to come up with a camera that pleases nobody.

Nobody being................................ well, you obviously I guess, but how many others are you presuming to speak on behalf of here? I'll make my mind up in my own time, thanks.

[Learning]

Wouldn't mind having a shot of one with a nice 50mm equiv on it myself

Me too. But also with the chance to swap the 25mm 'pancake'(standard) lens, for a 12mm, and a collapsible 50mm. Unfortunately not one of those lenses is available.
I don't like the pseudo SLR design, however even with it it would be just pocket able with a lens that did not protrude more than about 5mm in front of the hand grip. The view finder, which bulges upwards and backwards, seems to be the big obstacle to pocketability.
I suppose Panasonic have done their consumer research and identified a market for a miniature toy DSLR lookalike. Perhaps someone else will use the micro four thirds specification to make a true Digital Interchangeable Lens Compact.
Olympus also have published a design, but I would criticise that for not having a viewfinder at all. They have also dropped the handgrip.

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is certainly a small EVF Compact with interchangeable lenses.

However it departs from the best practice by not having an optical viewfinder. I am not bothered that it does not have a rangefinder. as I am sure the system it has is fast enough and certainly more flexible.

I do not care for electronic view finders especially when moving fast as they have difficulty keeping up and can cause trails.

I understand why they did not fit an optical view finder, as accommodating for parallax and interchangeable zoom lenses, is both difficult and expensive: and perhaps more likely to be seen if Leica enter this field.

I understand that the EVF on the G1 is as good as they yet get, and suspect such devices will improve rapidly if this sort of camera catches on.

From an aesthetic point of view I would have preferred it to have the look and feel of a traditional rangefinder looking perhaps more like its contax namesake.


I did not take part in the questionnaire as none of the given answers are correct.

[Learning]

I share your concern about evf being not as good as a precise optical viewfinder, however the technology of evfs is improving. A satisfactory optical viewfinder with framing adjusted precisely to focal length and with parallax correction would be an immensely expensive instrument involving complex optical, mechanical and elctronic engineering. No one is going to produce it and no one could afford it. There is no mechanical feedback from the lens.

[beejaybee]

However it departs from the best practice by not having an optical viewfinder.

Replace the word "best" by "acceptable" and I'd agree. EVFs may be improving but until they have the same or more resolution than the sensor they're simply not good enough. That would of course be very expensive; as the manufacturers are saving only a couple of dollars at most production cost by not incorporating an OVF I don't think there's much hope.

[Zou]

I can't see the point in the G1 to be honest. Yes, the IQ in a small package is tempting, but I cannot live with EVFs. If I had one of these cameras I wouldn't use the EVF - just as I haven't used the EVF on previous Panasonic bridge digicams I have used. For me, had they left out the EVF, and styled the camera more like the Canon G series (but with interchangeable lenses) and popped a small optical finder with frame lines for (say) 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm, I would be far more interested. For longer focal lengths the monitor on the back would surely be good enough, especially if the camera is tripod mounted. With the Lumix FZ-5 and FZ-30 I found the IS wasn't all that great, so I would use a tripod or wall to support the camera when using the very long end of the zooms.

[Learning]

If one looks on
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/index.html
then it is clear that the concept is "100% digital" We can forget about optical viewfinders.
It is clear also that the specification is to be used for videography as well as digital photography. On the photographic front it is to replace a DSLR and make a compact camera.
If the standard catches on, and I hope that it does, we may well see camera bodies that are reminiscent of DSLRs, digital compacts, video cameras, and perhaps more importantly something designed from scratch.
The present camera is not on my shopping list. I expect to buy into this standard within the next two years provided that Olympus or Panasonic make good use, in a timely manner, of the work they have invested so far.

[GeoffR]

If one looks on
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/index.html
then it is clear that the concept is "100% digital" We can forget about optical viewfinders.
It is clear also that the specification is to be used for videography as well as digital photography. On the photographic front it is to replace a DSLR and make a compact camera.
If the standard catches on, and I hope that it does....

I have to say that while I can admire the concept I hope the "insert system name" does NOT catch on, at least as far as replacing the SLR. In terms of control and speed of operation the SLR is probably the best combination around.

[Still_Togging_Along]

It's an interesting concept; looking at the usually given reasons for disliking it, (1) Because it has an EVF, but, with AF being very accurate these days, I wonder how many people actually leave AF switched off and focus manually, especially with cameras having 'spot focussing'?

(2) Similarly, some people bemoan the lack of a a DOF scale on lenses, but what % of users actually use this scale?

This will possibly seduce users who want better quality images than one gets from a bridge camera, without the attendant bulk because bridge cameras usually have fairly extensive zooms, and users have the opportunity of changing their lenses for more specialised needs, such as macro or ultra-wide shots. As for what one should call this camera, I'm still trying to think of a suitable title.

[Terrywoodenpic]

However it departs from the best practice by not having an optical viewfinder.

Replace the word "best" by "acceptable" and I'd agree. EVFs may be improving but until they have the same or more resolution than the sensor they're simply not good enough. That would of course be very expensive; as the manufacturers are saving only a couple of dollars at most production cost by not incorporating an OVF I don't think there's much hope.

To day parallax compensation and a visual frame in an optical viewfinder could be provided electronically as a transparent or reflected moving image lcd frame. It would need no mechanical links at all.
Gross magnification changes relating to focal length could be derived from the normal exif data, and applied with a basic zoom view finder as provided on many compacts.

The fine tuning would be provided by the electronic frame.

Such a hybrid device would not be expensive to construct, but might take a modicum of research to perfect.

It would have the advantage of providing a fully compensated real image.

[Learning]

As for what one should call this camera, I'm still trying to think of a suitable title.

microft for micro four thirds as in the url quoted earlier.
dilc digital interchangeable lens camera.
On another thread a member of the forum also constructed an accurate description which reduced to a rather rude acronym.

[RogerMac]

Unlike most of the people who have contributed to this thread I have handled one, several weeks ago. I liked it and BTW the viewfinder is perfectly acceptable. I liked it so much that I tried to buy one for my wife's birthday present - but got told firmly that if it did not fit into a handbag she was not having it. So they have not cracked that market yet, perhaps the forthcoming Oly will be more handbag friendly.

[TimF]

You'll have to stretch to a larger handbag as well then, Roger.

[Hotblack]

Unlike most of the people who have contributed to this thread I have handled one, several weeks ago. I liked it and BTW the viewfinder is perfectly acceptable.

I too have handled one a few weeks ago. Personally I didn't like the EVF. The camera (to me) was larger than I would have expected. To me seemed more like a DSLR without the reflex than anything else.