Gf1 vs others

[toddbee]

Hey guys. i have not posted in a while. i really love my gf1 and couple of lense i have for it. Coming from many dslr's prior with the last one being sony a900 i was wondering how many of you came from similar cameras. i love the size and quality of the images that comes out of this camera very much, but before i pick up a couple more lenses i was wondering how others feel about the IQ of this camera and lense system. Do you feel you are missing anything from your prior camera system?
Thanks,
Todd

 

[seakayaker]

Hey guys. i have not posted in a while. i really love my gf1 and couple of lense i have for it. Coming from many dslr's prior with the last one being sony a900 i was wondering how many of you came from similar cameras. i love the size and quality of the images that comes out of this camera very much, but before i pick up a couple more lenses i was wondering how others feel about the IQ of this camera and lense system. Do you feel you are missing anything from your prior camera system?
Thanks,
Todd

NO!

. . . . . having fun with the GF1 . . . . .

Life is Grand!

Dan

 

[shadzee]

I have GF1, and have also added GH1... However, even my Pentax K20D beats these two at the pixel level clarity, and I sure FF cameras have MUCH better dynamic range...

But as they say, the most important thing is to HAVE the camera with you, and the GF1 does well in that regard.

From what I've seen here, a lot of people use the GF1 as their main camera, and have a FF body for those occasional "Need a very large print" times ;-)

 

[wjlapier]

I've been using my GF1 and 14-140 for shooting my kids playing baseball/softball. It does well, but my Nikon D2Hs and 80-200 AF-S handles fast action better. That said, the continuous AF of the GF1 and 14-140 is actually pretty good.

All that said, I prefer to take the smaller kit if I have good light. I also prefer the colors out of the GF1 compared to the D2Hs.

 

[Godfrey]

Hey guys. i have not posted in a while. i really love my gf1 and couple of lense i have for it. Coming from many dslr's prior with the last one being sony a900 i was wondering how many of you came from similar cameras. i love the size and quality of the images that comes out of this camera very much, but before i pick up a couple more lenses i was wondering how others feel about the IQ of this camera and lense system. Do you feel you are missing anything from your prior camera system?
Thanks,
Todd

I use the G1 alongside and with the same lenses as the Panasonic L1 and Olympus E-1 SLRs. In several ways, it's the more capable camera, and in my opinion it has surpassed all my prior DSLRs (Canon and Pentax) in terms of what I can get in image quality as well. The two DSLR bodies are superior mostly in terms of sequence capture and general ruggedness, particularly the E-1.

If I start doing more event photography of the type I was shooting last Saturday evening, however, I need more sensitivity than any of these three cameras can deliver. That's when I'll invest in a Nikon D700 or D3 with a larger, more sensitive sensor. (That is, of course, unless Olympus next pro body ups the sensitivity so that ISO 3200 is fully usable. That would be enough and would cost me a lot less than expanding my lens kit for another mount.)

 

[Rawfa]

I have an E-P1 and I have just bought a GF1 for its superior AF speed and due to the fact that it can now shoot really high quality video (thanks to a codec hack). My main complains with the micro 4/3 system in general is dynamic range (I used a Nikon D5000 and a Pentax KX for a while and both had around 12,5 stops of dynamic range against the GF1´s 10,3...that is a BIG difference). High iso could also be better but it´s not always that I find myself needing to shoot higher than iso 1600 (which is usable on the GF1 and the E-P1 with some careful post on photoshop). Many times I´ve been tempted to switch to a camera that suits my needs better but I decided to wait and see what the micro 4/3 system will bring us in the future...after all just look at how much regular DLSRs have evolved in the last 6 years or more. Micro 4/3 is just a baby and its full potential is far from having reached its peak.

 

[CPWarner]

I have a GF1, a G2 and a Canon 1DsMKII. In terms of image quality, that is very dependent on how you are going to display your results. The images I get from my 1DsMKII will allow greater enlargement for large prints than the GF1/G2. I also has slightly larger dynamic range. In terms of resolution, my opinion, is that the lens choices you make are often as important or more important than the sensor. A Contax G 90mm on the G2 is REALLY sharp particularly at equivalent size to 8x10 to 11x14. I could pick a lens to put on the Canon and get inferior results. So my conclusion is that the m4/3 cameras provide very good image quality if you pick your lenses wisely and use good technique (including tripods where needed). They are not going to match the resolution of some of the best full frame cameras, but then again you might be carrying them when you would have given up on bringing a 1 series and a range of lenses and the larger tripod need to support that setup.

 

[Acuity]

I have an E-P1, a 40D, and a 1DS2. I have been quite amazed by the quality of the E-P1, even using in-camera Jpeg (with LR noise reduction) up to ASA1600. It is light (which means I can take it anywhere - often with a RS strap), and the resolution is fine for any on-line or projection needs. Yes, the DR is less, the pixel level quality is not perfect. But it is a keeper. Focusing speed - no good for sports, but with the last 2 firmware upgrades, it is not a problem for more static shooting. And it's pretty accurate.

Tried a GF1 - don't like the handling as much, and the jpegs are not as good out of camera. If I want to do major post-processing, I'll shoot raw, but the jpegs on teh E-P1 are good enough for most needs.