Panasonic G2 and G10 announced

[Tonygamble]

Hi

but I know one GH1 / GF-1 / EP-2 owner who takes stock photography who's seriously considering dumping all his 4/3 gear to go with this ...

Depending what you like to photograph the USM ring motor lenses on the Canon (like a EF300f4 IS) for which there is no parallel in the panasonic lineup. I know the G2 looks like it may be able to use CDAF compatible Oly lenses ...

And presumably the chip on the 550 is quite a bit bigger than 4/3.

Yes, the legacy of Canon lenses is valuable. I used a 70-210 IS zoom on my 350d over the weekend to cover a stage play. Some shots on http://www.tonygamble.org/cowardprodn/ if you want a diversion.

Tony

 

[Jonas]

And presumably the chip on the 550 is quite a bit bigger than 4/3.

The are of the Canon crop sensor is, nearly exactly, 50% larger than the µ4/3 and 4/3 sensor area. DOF- and noise-wise that is about 0.7 stops.

The difference is either quite a bit, or nearly nothing, it depends on your take on it. The real difference is of course between FF and the 1.5, 1.6 and 2x crop sensors.

About camera sizes... well, it is about the system you carry around, not just the camera. I'm interested in the total weight on your shoulder during a day's walk around a summer city.

BTW; you have a lot of nice theatre shots!

regards,

/Jonas

 

[Tonygamble]

I'm interested in the total weight on your shoulder during a day's walk around a summer city.

BTW; you have a lot of nice theatre shots!

regards,

/Jonas

So, as pellicle pointed out there was around 100gms difference in the body, we need to be thinking about matching Panny and Canon lenses. I use the EFS 17-85 on my 350d. I'm not sure what the Panny equivalent is. And I've not looked up what Canon would replicate the 20mm pancake that people are enthusing about.

Thanks for the compliment on the theatre shots. It's our local amdram. I cover it with a wide zoom on my v old 1d, medium on the newish 5d and long zoom on the 350d - all lenses from my pre-digital life.

Tony

 

[pellicle]

Tony

you do have some nice theater shots there ...

The are of the Canon crop sensor is, nearly exactly, 50% larger than the µ4/3 and 4/3 sensor area. DOF- and noise-wise that is about 0.7 stops.

About camera sizes... well, it is about the system you carry around, not just the camera. I'm interested in the total weight on your shoulder during a day's walk around a summer city.

Jonas, back in June 2009 I packed a few lenses with my G1 to cover a conference. FD300f4, 100f2.8 and 50f1.4 as well as the Oly 9-18 and the Kit 14-45.

When I picked up my pack I wondered where the hell did my light weight system go. So yes, its about the system.

I would like to have had better noise at 1600iso or perhaps OIS in my 300f4 (like the EF does) as there was still enough shake to make my hand helds at 1/50th just that wee bit blurry for anything more than small display (lucky tat was all that was needed)

My experience over this last year of using the G1 is that its a very competent camera and 5 years ago I would have been totally stunned with it. However I've also used other good cameras in that time and wonder if I should reconsider my gear ...

 

[Diane B]

When I got my G1 over a year ago, I did some comparisons with my 400D which I had bought, used, to be my 'small' cam (and backup). There really wasn't enough difference to persuade me to carry the XTi with EF lenses as opposed to the m4/3rds kit (as Jonas says--its the weight/size of the gear carrying around). Once I mounted those lenses or put them in my bag, there wasn't any 'small' camera any longer. Others may feel differently about it--there are those that need a DSLR, regardless of which one. That's not me so the choice wasn't difficult.

Where I saw the big difference, was, of course, with my 5D. When I want that 'difference' I'm willing to carry the 5D--but in fact just have sold off a lot of lenses that just didn't see any usage and kept just those that really make a difference for me with the 5D. I also sold the APS-c body.

I think everyone has to make those personal decisions based on what they shoot, how they shoot, what their intended output is, etc. I will say that incorporating the m4/3rds system into my photographic world ended up with me not having a desire to upgrade my FF body.

The are of the Canon crop sensor is, nearly exactly, 50% larger than the µ4/3 and 4/3 sensor area. DOF- and noise-wise that is about 0.7 stops.

The difference is either quite a bit, or nearly nothing, it depends on your take on it. The real difference is of course between FF and the 1.5, 1.6 and 2x crop sensors.

About camera sizes... well, it is about the system you carry around, not just the camera. I'm interested in the total weight on your shoulder during a day's walk around a summer city.

 

[pellicle]

Hi Di

When I got my G1 over a year ago, I did some comparisons with my 400D which I had bought, used, to be my 'small' cam (and backup). There really wasn't enough difference to persuade me to carry the XTi

yes, I'm in that boat. Its the carrying the extra lenses which is the problem for me. So I'm thinking I should switch the G1 to an E-P1 (or two) and just have the 17mm pancake.

decisions decisions ;-)

 

[Tonygamble]

I think my Canon EFS 17-85 weighs 475 gms.

I think the Panny 14-45 weighs 195 gms.

Thereby might hang a tale regarding equivalent weights.

Tony

 

[Decisive Momentum]

The 14mm is also sounds like nice lens, though I have hopes Olympus will come out with the rumored 12mm lens soon.

Can't find an announcement for this lens. Could you post a link?

Thanks.

 

[Jonas]

Jonas, back in June 2009 I packed a few lenses with my G1 to cover a conference. FD300f4, 100f2.8 and 50f1.4 as well as the Oly 9-18 and the Kit 14-45.

When I picked up my pack I wondered where the hell did my light weight system go. So yes, its about the system.

I would like to have had better noise at 1600iso or perhaps OIS in my 300f4 (like the EF does) (...)

I'm lucky as I never felt the need for anything much longer than equiv 100mm. Try to find smaller lenses pellicle...

The Cosmicar makes an OK and fast WA, the 20/1.7 is small but also what it is so a Schneider Xenon 25/1.5 comes to use instead. For a portrait/short tele the Zeiss Planar 45/2 is very good. So is the small and cute Pen FT 42/1.2. A little longer and the Voigtländer 75/2.5 beats anything else, and the Olympus OM100/2.8 is the same size as a standard 50/1.4.

I don't regret selling the 5DMkII as I have more fun now. Sure, sometimes I miss the shallow DOF and less noise at base ISO, but I can get by. More workarounds, more fun and less to carry.

Cheers,

/Jonas

 

[Diane B]

I don't shoot tele either--I do have the 45-200 but I rarely use it. But--for those that want longer, OBIS--there will be the 100-300 next Fall. I'm assuming it will bea 'relatively' lighter lens. I do think that if you are going for lighter/somewhat smaller (as I am with this gear) then its relative. I know when I pack my Domke F6 with my G1, ZD 9-18, 20 f/1.7, 45 f/2.8 (Or perhaps my FD 50 f/1.8), 45-200--probably the FD 28 f/20 and maybe the Lensbaby Composer/FE plus the GF1--its still WAY smaller than anything to cover that FL with my 5D--or any Canon. I'd have to carry my Lowepro Magnum Pro--my Sling 200 won't carry that--I can't carry the 300 full LOL. OTOH--usually I would carry the 9-18, 20 on the GF1, 45 on the G1 and perhaps stick in the 45-200 and it would be really comfortable. I've carried my 5D, a WAZ, 24-70L, 70-200 F4L in a backpack and shoulder bag for many full days. The last time in Maine I was determined to find a better solution and enjoy my photography.

Diane

 

[tripper]

Nobody does 'off topic' quite like this forum, it's very quaint :deadhorse:

tripper

 

[Diane B]

It is true, isn't it?? But its rather like having a civil conversation here on this forum--and you know how those veer off into all sorts of directions

Nobody does 'off topic' quite like this forum, it's very quaint :deadhorse:

tripper

 

[Diane B]

Okay, one ON topic. There is a post on another forum that may be of interest here. He spent 2.5 hours in the Panny booth at Focus trying cameras, talking to the reps. For what its worth--he said the G2 was shown with the 14-45 and he asked why when it was announced with the 14-42. They told him that that was wrong and needed corrected--the G10 will ship with the 14-42 and the G2 will ship with the 14-45 as the G1 did. As I said--for what its worth, but that sounds reasonable.

Diane

 

[Jonas]

Nobody does 'off topic' quite like this forum, it's very quaint :deadhorse:

tripper

tripper,

Please accept my apologizes. Reading my posts I see the substance in them is close to zero. I think I was trying to act as a social being despite knowing I'm no good at that. I even went off topic.

OK, from my long list with features I wanted to see in a new µ4/3 body I notice not one single point was addressed by Panasonic. I'm highly disappointed.



/Jonas

 

[Terry]

The are of the Canon crop sensor is, nearly exactly, 50% larger than the µ4/3 and 4/3 sensor area. DOF- and noise-wise that is about 0.7 stops.

The difference is either quite a bit, or nearly nothing, it depends on your take on it. The real difference is of course between FF and the 1.5, 1.6 and 2x crop sensors.

About camera sizes... well, it is about the system you carry around, not just the camera. I'm interested in the total weight on your shoulder during a day's walk around a summer city.

BTW; you have a lot of nice theatre shots!

regards,

/Jonas

We always seem to talk about sensor size but leave off one key ingredient which is aspect ratio. A lot of the difference in the sensor size (between APS and 4/3) can be accounted for horizontally taking you from 3:2 to 4:3 aspect ratio. I personally prefer the 4:3 ratio. The vertical height of the two sensors are pretty close.

 

[Tonygamble]

So, are we saying that it is not the weight of the bodies (G10 v 550D) that matters. It is the weight of the lenses?

Tony

 

[Y.B.Hudson III]

wh@t Lenses... to quote Michiharu Uematsu:

"The picture is now largely a matter of software and electronics"


http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.focus-numerique.com%2Fnews_id-1844.html&sl=auto&tl=en


re@d and wEEp...


Hudson

 

[Godfrey]

What was the question?

regards the G2:

- new control arrangement looks good to me
- af with FT SLR lenses is a plus
- touch screen could be good, can't say til i use it
- HD video is a nice add.
- improved sequence display in the EVF is a plus
- keeping most everything else same as the G1 is great

I understand (from a post elsewhere, I think) that the 14-42 lens is for the G10 only, the G2 will be equipped with the 14-45. And that Panasonic will sell the G2 as a body only.

Yeah, that's all good for me. I'll be waitin' for it.

 

[Godfrey]

re@d and wEEp...

Why? It's the photograph that matters, not the lenses.

 

[Y.B.Hudson III]

Yehh... those Lens sign@ture you have grown to love wiLL now be generated by focus gropes (groups)... an we'LL be avitar prisioners in their virtual worLd