The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Pushing the G's

peterb

Member
Got the G1 three years ago when I totally embraced what Panasonic hath wrought with its innovative approach to picture taking in the digital age. Small, high quality bodies that won't give you a hernia, small, quality optics (with the option of accessing even more quality optics, albeit manually focusing, via adapters), an incredible EVF that's big, bright and informative and the articulating LCD that has proven it's usefulness more times than I can count.

As a result I've come to really love the G1 and now look forward (after careful deliberation that opened up the possibility of getting a Nikon D7000) to getting the GH2.

I've taken my little G1 to the ends of the earth often through some tough terrain (which made me really appreciate its lightness and compactness all the more).

Just curious, does anyone here think these incredible Lumix cameras could withstand the rigors of weddings, full time portraiture and other rigorous usage? My thinking is that for the price of some bigger hulking camera with a shutter that's been tested to 100K-150K cycles, I could buy TWO of these.

Any thoughts?
 

Tesselator

New member
I think it depends on the scheduling and the size of your team. If you're doing one wedding per day then you'll need two post edit-bay experts IMO. If you just mean like a friend's wedding or something like that then sure, a single guy need not worry about it if he knows what he's doing and which software tools (stress on the plural) to use.

But unless it's a family business it'll pay off financially to purchase a camera that performs flawlessly in low light... like the D700 or something. With the D700 you'll spend less than one minute (per image) editing. With the GH2, G2, or GH1, G1 you'll spend 5 to 7 minutes on each of most of the images. With only 100 "keepers" that's 500 ~ 700 minutes or about 10 hours - as opposed to the 1.5 hours for the same set from the D700.

Unless you can sell your customers on the artistic value of sensor noise and low-ish DR, you'll spend less money in the long run by getting the best equipment up front - instead of paying salaries out every month to make up for the differences.

The GH1/GH2 and the G2 certainly are capable of doing it tho.

BTW, I think it's 6 or 7 cameras to one as the current ratio tho. The GH1 (body only) goes for $300 (or less) now... compared to the D700's $1.9K. :)
 

MRfanny

New member
I just did my first photoshoot the other day...mind you i am no pro. But i do agree on Tesselator that it does take more work to process the photos in post from the gh1, especially the raws. I found it easier to process the jpegs that accompany the raws as most of the look good stuff has been done in camera, mainly noise reduction.

That said, will the gh2 be better in performance and noise compared to the gh1. I want it for the improved video noise, just hope it transfers over to stills. Enjoyed the shoot so much I am now contemplating getting a dedicated full frame just for these particular shoots like a 5d because it still has video capabilities.

So i think i am asking the same question too, do you guys thing the lumix can do as good a job as the big boys?
 

Tesselator

New member
As good? No, definitely not. Good enough? Probably, but that depends on your expectations.
Agree, but add "processing abilities" to "expectations".

The GH2 IMO is better at noise yes, but not enough to really change my initial comment. Then again there two other things to immediately consider in the same breath: 1) I don't own a GH2 so I may be full of it, and 2) the OP is asking specifically about the G1 - the GH2 currently carries an initial investment about the same as a used D700 - Silly Panasonic!!!
 

m3photo

New member
Print Size

Just curious, does anyone here think these incredible Lumix cameras could withstand the rigors of weddings, full time portraiture and other rigorous usage?
This type of question always prompts the same question in return: How large do you want to print?
 

Jonas

Active member
As good? No, definitely not. Good enough? Probably, but that depends on your expectations.
Agree, but add "processing abilities" to "expectations".
(...)
1) I don't own a GH2 so I may be full of it,
(...)
This type of question always prompts the same question in return: How large do you want to print?
I agree about everything;
The G cameras are far from FF cameras thinking of pure image quality incl noise, resolution and artsy capabiltities, processing time, and print size added up.
Sometimes I miss my 5D cameras (owned one of each generation).

And then we have expectations, or demands. I'm not fully happy with my (two years old, Peter) G1. It is however good enough for 75 or 80% of the images I would like to take. Until we have full frame Live cameras I stay put.

Just as Tesselator I don't own a GH2. I even haven't seen one in real life as silly Panasonic decided Sweden is to wait. I have read reports about the GH2 taking more heavy PP better, having less noise, better gradation and offering better ergonomics. Hmm. I would like to try one, maybe Pansonic eventually ships some body only boxes to Sweden. Summer 2011?

/Jonas
 

Tesselator

New member
Don't feel bad Jonas, I live in Japan and all they have that I can see in the shops is a hollow plastic mockup of it. :( I guess they have some in boxes somewhere but no one is putting the actual cameras out on display - in Nagoya Japan (3rd/4th largest area/city)





BTW, I don't think the print question is relevant any longer. Unless you're printing museum grade a 12mpx camera of ANY quality is good enough to print at ANY size. And I really mean ANY size! 8mpx is cutting it close... 6mpx has definite limits. 12mpx and above has no limits at all. This is somewhat dependent on the purpose and indented viewing style of the image however.

But for weddings and so forth where the photographs are typically intended to be viewed as a single image 12mpx is now large enough to print them at any size you wish. From postcard sized all the way to up to large enough to cover all 4 sides of the empire state building. So all those old res charts that say how large you can and can't print at can be thrown out now and forever! :)
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Can these cameras stand the rigours of professional usage? To some extent - at the price discount to a 'professional' camera - does it matter? What I mean to say is you can probably justify any camera depending on the breakeven point between initial cost and payback. I suspect the breakeven point is a lot lower due to the smaller outlay with a m43rds camera. Personally, I really don't care too much if my GBP400 body of my GF-1 lasts any more than a year - although it came with a 3-year warranty which I was most impressed by. However, a GBP1600 body, for a D700 really better keep going for at least 3 years.

This of course accepts Tesselator's point that for all intents and purposes - and especially the small print sizes of most wedding albums, you don't get much more IQ out of a FF over a m43rds if indeed the GH-2 does have the high iso performance I've seen in samples, so far.

LouisB
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I used the G1 from about a month after it was released (early Dec 2008) until last month when I bought the Olympus E-5. I shot several assignment gigs with it exclusively, did a heck of a lot of tabletop work with it, pursued my personal projects with it too. An excellent camera that produces fully competent, professionally acceptable results.

Why did I abandon it and go with the E-5? Not for any lack of what the G1 can do, but for the additional things the E-5 brings to my kit:

- more responsiveness
- both optical reflex and articulated Live View finders
- high-speed sequence capture
- video capture
- dual storage card slots
- weather sealing
- incremental improvements in acutance, DR and sensitivity
- better ergonomics with my best, fast lenses (all fast, FourThirds mount SLR lenses)
- wireless dedicated flash control capability
- overall durability

Some of these things will allow work the G1 is not quite up to, for me anyway, but for what you have listed the only area where the G1 might have some difficulties is for rugged conditions where weather/dust sealing potentially makes a difference.

I thought about these things extensively over the entire time I had the G1 as I'd been considering the E-3 when I bought the G1 ... had actually been considering the E-3 since it was released a year earlier. The G1 did a lot of excellent work for me and if I hadn't already been well-equipped in lenses I like for the SLRs I'd likely have expanded the Micro-FT kit further, but for the moment the SLR kit has enough compelling advantages that I'm going to stick with it.

I suspect when Olympus offers a pro-grade Micro-FT body and some pro-grade lenses exploiting the capabilities of the Micro-FT mount ... along with a higher level of competence and compatibility for their entire FT SLR lens line ... I'll be right there for it. :)
 

Jonas

Active member
Don't feel bad Jonas, I live in (,,,) Nagoya Japan (3rd/4th largest area/city)

BTW, I don't think the print question is relevant any longer. Unless you're printing museum grade a 12mpx camera of ANY quality is good enough to print at ANY size.
(...)
So all those old res charts that say how large you can and can't print at can be thrown out now and forever! :)
Jeepers. Sweden has as many habitants as there are people living within the 50km circle around Nagoya! Watch out... we are coming!

:)

The noise at base ISO in my G1 images prevent super large images. Maybe it is an unusually noisy G1.

Cheers,

/Jonas
 

Jonas

Active member
Topaz DeNoise... I never use those noise reducers. Does it work without making everything look like plastic? I won't drag this totally off topic, but a short hint, should I download a trial or something? Is Noiseware which I also heard about be better or worse, generally?
 

jonoslack

Active member
But unless it's a family business it'll pay off financially to purchase a camera that performs flawlessly in low light... like the D700 or something. With the D700 you'll spend less than one minute (per image) editing. With the GH2, G2, or GH1, G1 you'll spend 5 to 7 minutes on each of most of the images. With only 100 "keepers" that's 500 ~ 700 minutes or about 10 hours - as opposed to the 1.5 hours for the same set from the D700.
Sheesh - I'm no professional, but I occasionally do weddings professionally. Some points:

1. if you only got 100 keepers you're dead
2. if you need 5 minutes per shot average for post processing you lost money
3. if you turn up with a cheap plastic camera you're dust

Nothing against the panasonic cameras - they're fine, and of course they're completely capable of shooting most weddings.

But Uncle Joe will turn up with a 1DMkIII
Uncle Bill will have a Nikon D3x
and Auntie Cam will have an M9 and a noctilux.
Not to mention dad, who has an HD4 P65+
and Brother in law Steve who's shot society weddings for 20 years

and when you've finished they'll expect a book with all the guests in it.

Seriously - I'm clutching at credentials with two M9's and an A900.

It's nothing to do with whether it will 'do the job' . It's about whether the client believes you've 'done the job'.
 

Tesselator

New member
Topaz DeNoise... I never use those noise reducers. Does it work without making everything look like plastic? I won't drag this totally off topic, but a short hint, should I download a trial or something? Is Noiseware which I also heard about be better or worse, generally?
I currently own all of the commercially available mainstream noise reduction products. Topaz DeNoise is the current king in several respects. None of them are perfect and all of them can over-remove noise making things look plasticky or pasty. The solution here is to fade the results. If you're in Photoshop (CS2 ~ CS5) there is a Fade tool in the Edit menu which will do this for you. So as you're building your script (you do use scripts right?!?) add the fade tool in-line after the DeNoise. I actually have fade tools added in after just about every tool-process I apply. Anyway, faded at about 80% or 90% it won't look plasticky. ;) Two of the things that makes Topaz the current leader are it's dynamic image analysis where it analyses each image and then suggests a set of defaults (weighted to your own defaults), and it's output - as it retains more detail given the same amount of NR than the others do.


Seriously - I'm clutching at credentials with two M9's and an A900.
I think you shouldn't. Just do the best you can, believe in yourself, and expect your services to be taken as seriously as you've advertised them to be.

It's nothing to do with whether it will 'do the job' . It's about whether the client believes you've 'done the job'.
I did weddings in Collage to pay for tuition. I think believing in yourself is the key to you clients believing in you. You're right though: Perception is a major factor - given all other things being equal it's probably the biggest factor. :)
 
Last edited:

f6cvalkyrie

Well-known member
But Uncle Joe will turn up with a 1DMkIII
Uncle Bill will have a Nikon D3x
and Auntie Cam will have an M9 and a noctilux.
Not to mention dad, who has an HD4 P65+
and Brother in law Steve who's shot society weddings for 20 years

and when you've finished they'll expect a book with all the guests in it.

Seriously - I'm clutching at credentials with two M9's and an A900.

It's nothing to do with whether it will 'do the job' . It's about whether the client believes you've 'done the job'.
In that case, Jono, you can still choose a SINAR p3 with an eMotion 75LV back. But, maybe, the 13 year old nephew Vladimir already has one :D

Have anice day,
Rafael
 

jonoslack

Active member
In that case, Jono, you can still choose a SINAR p3 with an eMotion 75LV back. But, maybe, the 13 year old nephew Vladimir already has one :D

Have anice day,
Rafael
He certainly does. When I was doing publicity stuff I used to take something huge with me, with a damn great lens on the end, then put it down on one side and shoot everything with a Leica M.

I really think it makes life easier if you 'look' professional (I think it's sad that it's the case, but I do think it IS the case). I was talking to another wedding photographer, and he was wishing that they made great big hassleblad shaped outer cases that you could slip your little camera into!

I can't imagine turning up to shoot a wedding with a plastic panasonic G camera - and anyway, it can't possibly be the best tool for the job.

all the best
 

jonoslack

Active member
Seriously - I'm clutching at credentials with two M9's and an A900.
I think you shouldn't. Just do the best you can, believe in yourself, and expect your services to be taken as seriously as you've advertised them to be.

I think believing in yourself is the key to you clients believing in you. You're right though: Perception is a major factor - given all other things being equal it's probably the biggest factor. :)
I think you misunderstand me - I quite agree about believing in yourself - and as far as I'm concerned, it's the kit I want to use. What I meant is that you can get funny looks from the guests with their great big Canons even with my kit - I can't imagine what it would be like with a couple of G2s over your shoulder!

Mind you - I don't ever use any noise reduction software for wedding shots - I think it makes it take too long to be feasible. IMHO you need a good DAM, a good procedure and get the shots right in camera.
 

peterb

Member
It's nothing to do with whether it will 'do the job' . It's about whether the client believes you've 'done the job'.
LOL so true. Perception is EVERYTHING.

It reminds me of a very funny advertising story: Years ago, J&J came out with a revolutionary antiseptic that came in spray can called Bactine. Mind you up til then the treatments of choice were either a tincture of iodine or this vile red liquid called mercurochrome (not to be mistaken as an initial attempt at a perfect film before Kodachrome). Both of these antiseptics, while effective, when applied to even the most minor cut, STUNG LIKE HELL. And kids wailed at the thought of having to present their little scratches to their parents.

J&J, changed all that with Bactine which was an antiseptic that DID NOT STING a whit. So they trotted out their bold new invention and what do you think what happened? It FAILED MISERABLY.

Parents, used to the idea of an antiseptic that would sting figured it really didn't work.

So J&J went back to their lab and decided to add an ingredient that was TOTALLY UNNECESSARY--alcohol. And whaddaya know? The fortunes of Bactine turned completely around. Because of the alcohol in the formula, the spray could deliver a little wallop just like the other stuff did. Mom's figured with a kid yowling the stuff REALLY worked. From the kids point of view it still hurt but didn't hurt NEARLY as much as the previous stuff. From the mom's point of view they bought it just for the CONVENIENCE of not having to hog tie their child in order to apply an antiseptic. And because it was a spray they could apply the antiseptic to the kid at a safe distance.

But truth be told, the alcohol wasn't needed at all. Again it's all about perception and conditioned expectations.

The question is, would a photographer be credible today if they showed up with a Nikon FM2? Or is substantial camera mass (and a doctor's certificate attesting to having completed a double hernia operation) the price of admission for acceptance by a client?
 

jonoslack

Active member
LOL so true. Perception is EVERYTHING.

It reminds me of a very funny advertising story: Years ago, J&J came out with a revolutionary antiseptic that came in spray can called Bactine. Mind you up til then the treatments of choice were either a tincture of iodine or this vile red liquid called mercurochrome (not to be mistaken as an initial attempt at a perfect film before Kodachrome). Both of these antiseptics, while effective, when applied to even the most minor cut, STUNG LIKE HELL. And kids wailed at the thought of having to present their little scratches to their parents.

J&J, changed all that with Bactine which was an antiseptic that DID NOT STING a whit. So they trotted out their bold new invention and what do you think what happened? It FAILED MISERABLY.

Parents, used to the idea of an antiseptic that would sting figured it really didn't work.

So J&J went back to their lab and decided to add an ingredient that was TOTALLY UNNECESSARY--alcohol. And whaddaya know? The fortunes of Bactine turned completely around. Because of the alcohol in the formula, the spray could deliver a little wallop just like the other stuff did. Mom's figured with a kid yowling the stuff REALLY worked. From the kids point of view it still hurt but didn't hurt NEARLY as much as the previous stuff. From the mom's point of view they bought it just for the CONVENIENCE of not having to hog tie their child in order to apply an antiseptic. And because it was a spray they could apply the antiseptic to the kid at a safe distance.

But truth be told, the alcohol wasn't needed at all. Again it's all about perception and conditioned expectations.

The question is, would a photographer be credible today if they showed up with a Nikon FM2? Or is substantial camera mass (and a doctor's certificate attesting to having completed a double hernia operation) the price of admission for acceptance by a client?
:thumbs:
Excellent
As to the FM2 - I think so, this is based on the fact that I can get away shooting with Leica M9s.
The doctors certificate would absolutely put you out of the running - it's no good telling someone that you have an ailment and expecting them to believe in you :ROTFL:
 
Top