G1 or E620?

[Arjuna]

My apologies for a slightly long-winded post/question. I am considering buying one or the other of these cameras, and would appreciate comments and suggestions. I have been shooting film for years, Leica and some Hasselblad recently, and have had a couple of little digital point and shoots; currently a Canon SD700IS. Thanks to the small size of the Canon, I tend to take it with me all the time, and thus get pictures that I wouldn't otherwise. Because it is digital, I probably also take (and delete) more pictures than I would with a film camera. Some recent shots, mostly with the Canon, are here: http://homepage.mac.com/macdonar/2009SpringLambs/, as some idea of the kind of pictures that I take. The pictures from the little digital can be remarkably good, but I find the lack of control in its use quite frustrating, and in low light the quality is disappointing, although, to be honest, probably not much, if any, worse than film would be in the same conditions. So I think that it is time that I moved up to a larger sensor and got a more 'serious' digital camera. It is intended to replace the little Canon, not be the ultimate when it comes to image quality - arguably I would be looking at a Nikon D700 or a Sony A900 for that, but not just yet.

I looked at both of these at my local camera store, and talked to one of the staff, whose opinions I value, about them. His preference was for the G1, because he finds that it focuses faster, because the lenses are smaller, and would expect that lenses designed for micro 4/3 will be smaller, and the camera is smaller. He wasn't impressed with the G1 when he first heard about, but is now enthusiastic about it. He isn't a big fan for the Olympus line, and seemed particularly unimpressed with their menu system.

For me, the G1 is smaller and lighter - closer to the little Canon - the viewfinder, in the store lighting, seemed brighter, the option to use other lenses, probably Leica or Zeiss M-mount, is either appealing or an expensive temptation that I should resist. The E620 felt more solid, but is bigger, the viewfinder seemed dimmer, but I very much like the idea of shake reduction in the body. I would probably get a kit (zoom) lens to start; on the E620 the pancake 25 and the 50 macro sound like a nice pair of primes. I know that they can also be used on the G1, but not so optimal.

I would like to hear your experiences, opinions and comments, pro and con, about these two cameras, especially from people, like Brian, who use or have used both of them. I am also interested in suggestions about lens choices, and raw developing choices. This will be the first camera that I will have had that can shoot raw: I have PhotoShop CS3, and perhaps I should just start with it and get used to raw processing, but I expect that sooner or later I will want to experiment with programs like Raw Developer and/or Aperture.

Thanks, in advance, for all your help.

 

[jonoslack]

Hi There
What an interesting question, and one that has exercised me quite a lot one way and another.

I bought a G1, it was great but for 2 issues:

1. I really prefer optical viewfinders, even if they're smaller (as the E620 is)
2. The RAW files contain lens correction information, which makes it unlikely that they'll be supported fully by a lot of 3rd party converters, notably Aperture which is my mainstay.


I actually had my credit card in my hand to buy an E620 the other day, but hopes of the Olympus m4/3 kept my hand in my pocket.

On the other hand, if the Olympus is small enough I think the E620 is a great camera, lots of features and great value for money.

Come to think of it, perhaps I want one anyway!

 

[doubledan]

As the owner of a G1 and an e510, I have been tempted by the 620 but decided to hold off any further purchases until we see what Olympus offers in the m4/3. One reason is that I am satifsfied for the most part with the G1, not only because of its relative compactness but also because I consider its image quality and dynamic range better than that of the 510; and also because, for shooting stage performances and such, the ability to use fast M-mount lenses is a great advantage, the lack of autofocus notwithstanding.

The Oly 50 macro is a great lens, and it will be interesting to see if Olympus can make it autofocus on an m4/3. The 25mm 2.8 pancake is only so-so; I suspect that many people are dying to jump to Panasonic's 20mm 1.7 as soon as it comes out.

The real strength of the Olympus dslr system is the great zoom lenses -- my particular favorite being the 12-60. But I find myself using the zooms less and less because my G1 kit is so light I can carry it anywhere, all day. Besides the G1 body I have the short kit zoom, which is good enough at the wide end; and a Canon rf 50 1.4 and an old Elmar 90, both of which produce superb images.

Dan

 

[Michiel Schierbeek]

Hello Arjuna,

Do have the G1 as well as the E-3. So that is a bigger difference in size as with the E-620. What I experience is that I grab the G1 most of the time lately for two reasons.
It's ideal for street shooting - I live in the city and it appears more low profile - and it is the best camera if you like legacy lenses of all sorts.
The kit lens and metering is surprisingly good and I shoot from the hip and from a bike.
I am completly used to the EVF, so that's no argument for me anymore. Even like it.
For landscapes and especially telework I prefer the E-3 which is more in balance with
heavy lenses, also with legacy lenses. If you have the time and working with a tripod it is no problem to get things right with the E-3 as well.
And of course the great oly lenses.
So it depends, as always, on your needs and preferences.
Good luck, Michiel

 

[Robert Campbell]

I wondered the same, and played with them a few days ago. They are both very small SLRs [I know the G1 isn't, but you know what I mean] and for me they were both too small to hold without pressing buttons accidentally. I'm continually pressing the AF/MF button on the 520 with the ball of my thumb, and wondering why it won't focus . I found that a SLR needs to be the minimum size of an E30 for me to avoid this -- I really don't know how others manage -- perhaps you all have elfin hands

The viewfinder is very much a personal thing -- I thought it rather good on the G1, and I'm now used to the dim tunnel on the 520 -- some people don't seem to get on with EVFs at all.

Jono mentioned that the G1 raw files have lens correction data in them; either you think this is a neat way to get round abberations, or you think that Pana are better at software than at lens design...and though the files can be converted to dng, this is 'linear' whatever that means, but they are much larger than they need to be...your choice of raw developer may be quite limited.

 

[Godfrey]

To me, this is a choice between two competing things:
- more native mount, autofocus lenses available for the E620.
- more usable with non-native mount, manual focus lenses for the G1.

I personally prefer the G1's viewfinder over any of the lower end DSLR cameras' optical viewfinders (and indeed a good number of the upper end DSLR viewfinders too), and prefer the ability to adapt almost any good lens to it with excellent ease of use and great imaging quality.

From the point of view of body controls and ergonomics, I'm not overly enamored of either. The G1 is a bit small with too many fussy controls, and I feel similarly about the E420 and E620. I own both the Olympus E-1 and Panasonic L1: they are larger, easier to hold and have nicer control layouts for my needs. But the G1's viewfinder I find to be superior to even so-called "full frame" DSLR viewfinders that I've used, and that combined with the ability to use any lens I want on it is what makes it a useful for me.

 

[iiiNelson]

If starting from scratch that's a difficult and somewhat personal needs question. There are many more lenses available for the 4/3 platform compared to the Micro 4/3 at present. There are more body choices as well but I believe the E620 and G1 have the same sensor if not they're very similar. I personally didn't want to wait on the E620 and comparing bodies there are features with the G1 which I preferred on paper. If you NEED a OVF then go 620 for sure. If you want to adapt lenses or think you may then go G1. They both have articulating screens. I believe the 620 is supposedly only slightly larger than the G1 which isn't pocket small but it's just just large enough to not be uncomfortable (I have large hands.)

Honestly both cameras are very good at what they do and a lot of the similarities are far greater than the differences IMO.

 

[Terry]

This is such a civilized discussion. I can just imaging this thread on DPReview!
:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

I think everyone has said it so I won't repeat.

 

[Robert Campbell]

I can just imaging this thread on DPReview!
:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

Shall we give it a go there?

 

[Terry]

OK I also can't type. That was supposed to be imagine!

 

[jonoslack]

OK I also can't type. That was supposed to be imagine!

iphone?

 

[jonoslack]

Jono mentioned that the G1 raw files have lens correction data in them; either you think this is a neat way to get round abberations, or you think that Pana are better at software than at lens design...and though the files can be converted to dng, this is 'linear' whatever that means, but they are much larger than they need to be...your choice of raw developer may be quite limited.

HI Robert
Yep - this is currently an obsession of mine. There was a big beef a couple of years ago about proprietary file formats (Nikon were attempting to make it so that others couldn't process their raw files as far as I can remember).

Not to suggest for a second that Panasonic are attempting anything Machiavellian, simply that the lens correction information makes it really tough for others to process the files.

I can live with any format as long as one can convert it to a 'normal' DNG file (either with adobe DNG converter or in Capture One). However, as you point out, using the DNG converter you get a 'linear' file - this has already been processed, with the result that it cannot be read by other programs which CAN read standard DNG files (Apple Aperture is a prime example).

I worry about the Sigma RAW files for the same reasons.

I'm trying to get hold of some E620 RAW files to see whether Capture one will convert them to DNG files (as it does with the E3, but not with the D-Lux4 [which holds lens information])

I've long since decided not to go down the road of using multiple processing software - I'm willing to put in a little effort to convert files to DNG first, but not more than that. I have 'too many' photos catalogued in Aperture, I don't want to have to go there again!

Of course, it's possible that Apple are beavering away to support files with lens correction (Leica d-lux4, Panasonic G-1 and LX3) - Godfrey might have a better idea about this than the rest of us -

Right now I'm quite concerned about being forced into a processing corner with the G1.

 

[Godfrey]

... DNG understanding ...

... I can live with any format as long as one can convert it to a 'normal' DNG file (either with adobe DNG converter or in Capture One). However, as you point out, using the DNG converter you get a 'linear' file - this has already been processed, with the result that it cannot be read by other programs which CAN read standard DNG files (Apple Aperture is a prime example).
...
Of course, it's possible that Apple are beavering away to support files with lens correction (Leica d-lux4, Panasonic G-1 and LX3) - Godfrey might have a better idea about this than the rest of us -
...

There are several inaccuracies in the above comments.

- A DNG conversion to a linearly represented form is indeed partially processed ... The de-mosaicing operation has been performed and the R, G and B channels are written independent of one another. Gamma correction has not been performed, and in the case of the Panasonic .RW2 files that contain lens correction metadata, the lens correction adjustments have been applied.

- The goal of linearly represented RAW data like this is to *enhance* application support of DNG files, not to limit it. It performs the demosaic operation which is specific to a sensor's hardware structure while leaving the flexibility of the gamma correction in the full photosite quantization domain. This enables various applications to read RAW files in DNG format from several cameras that they did not have native RAW calibration and mosaic data tables for.

- Apple's RAW processing engine is fully capable (now ... *) of reading the G1/LX3/etc .RW2 files which have been converted to linearly represented DNG files and processing them. (I've tested this with the G1 and LX3/DLux-4 files, not the GH1 output.)

* This didn't used to be the case. Apple's Aperture and other RAW processing capable applications at one time would not process *any* DNG files for which they did not have their own, prepackaged camera calibration profile for the orignal camera native RAW files whether the DNG files were written in mosaic or linear form. I always considered that a defective or incomplete DNG support issue on Apple's part, one of the reasons I went with Lightroom instead of Aperture in the first place.

- Note that Panasonic supplied all the specifications for the lens correction metadata to Adobe such that Camera Raw/DNG Converter v5.2 and v5.3, and Lightroom v2.2-2.3, support full native RW2 conversion processing with Panasonic's intended lens correction processing honored just as Silkypix does. The RAW files, DNG or RW2, are fully supported by the DNG Profile Editor too (you must convert to DNG format in order to create profiles, but you can then apply them to .RW2 files from that camera). Also, dcraw and other RAW converters based on it (VueScan and others) process .RW2 file from the camera native format *without* applying the lens corrections ... so there are indeed plenty of RAW conversion options available from several different vendor sources.

- A sidebar, but note that Panasonic G1/GH1 RW2 files created with lenses that do not supply the lens correction metadata are passed through DNG Converter (and Lightroom) into the more compact, mosaic data format into DNG files unless you have set the options to always create

The situation with .RW2 file processing and linearly represented DNG files is a conflict between the goals of the Digital NeGative file specification intent and the development of 'smart' lenses and bodies that incorporate a greater degree of software involvement into the creation of superior image quality. To understand what's going on:

* The goal of the DNG format effort is to create and popularize a RAW data file standard which allows any properly implemented application to process RAW data stored in the format to the full intent of the lens/camera manufacturer.

* Panasonic, with its enormous background in digital image processing, sees the lens/body/software camera system as the imaging tool and has innovated by allowing lenses to carry specific correction instructions which are injected into the RAW conversion operation at the demosaic/channel creation time. This is the best time to apply known lens correction adjustments as you can more easily reposition R, G and B channel pixel locations to combat chromatic aberration and rectilinear correction with the full range of data values available.

* This innovation is not covered by the DNG specification at its present revision level. If the lens correction metadata exists in the RAW format output, writing the DNG file with the data in mosaic format does not allow an arbitrary application to apply the lens corrections as intended by the manufacturer since the LC metadata is not known to them via the specification.

* What is needed, which Adobe is working on, is an update to the DNG specificaton to accommodate this new class of metadata such that DNG compatible applications can read any DNG file ... in linear or mosaic data form ... and achieve the processing intent *including* the lens corrections of the manufacturer.

---
Regards Apple's support of .RW2 files, well, I don't have any inside information beyond anyone else's. I can only speculate ... perhaps they're waiting for Adobe to finish the updated DNG specification first? ... perhaps they don't see enough market demand for the Panasonic cameras as yet? ... perhaps the development team is simply constrained by other factors and the processing job is either more complex or requires more time than other similar efforts due to the integration requirements of the Apple application suite that uses the RAW conversion core frameworks? ... I don't know, I don't really like to speculate on corporate priorities.

 

[Lili]

I am a very seldom RAW shooter, adhering to the jpeg Heresy, so I cannot comment on the latest posts to this thread.
Were I just startin with a blank slate this would be a very tough choice.
As things do stand, however, I have two Oly bodies and 5 lenses. I KNOW their excellent quality and would opt for the 620.
Just my two pfennig
Ooooo one more thing, OLy finder is 96% is taken image, G1 EVF IS 100%! That does make the race much closer!

 

[RonSmith]

I just got a G1 ... yesterday, in fact ... specifically in order to be able to use my Leica M lenses that I have accumulated over these past thirty years. I started shooting digital about five years ago (currently using a Canon 40D) and haven't shot a single roll of film since. Not being able to bring myself to sell off my M3 and M6 and lenses from 21 to 135, I was delighted when I found out about the micro 4/3 platform and the plethora of adapters available.

I just received a Voigtlander M:m43 adapter today and can't wait to try out all my Leica lenses. I also have a Nikon F to Leica M adapter that I got years ago, and will be trying out my 35/1.4, 55/2.8 and 180/2.8 Nikkors.

 

[Brian Mosley]

I am lucky enough to have both the G1 and the E-620... I bought the Lumix 14-45 lens and a 4/3rds adapter so that I could use my Hexanon legacy lenses and any 4/3rds standard lens on the G1.

Personally, I much prefer the E-620 due to ergonomics and full AF support of all 4/3rds lenses, and the rich Olympus colour.

With the G1, I shoot raw, and haven't taken the time to master RawTherapee yet, which is the only raw converter which doesn't suffer from colour artifacts.

Lightzone now supports both the G1 and E-620.

Kind Regards

Brian

 

[jonoslack]

Re: ... DNG understanding ...

There are several inaccuracies in the above comments.

Hi Godfrey
I'm going to PM you about this - I don't think I AM wrong, but it would be more graceful to understand each others points properly and present a united front. Issues of RAW support are important to lots of people, and it's not grand to have one person accusing another of innacuracy unless they are actually certain they're right!

(of course, I may be wrong - I often am - but let's bicker in private

 

[jonoslack]

Just as an aside
Many thanks to Brian, who sent me an E620 .orf file. As we know, this is currently only supported in a few converters:
Olympus Studio and Master
Lightzone
Capture one
. . . .and I'm sure there are others, but
Lightroom
ACR
Aperture
are all missing.

I opened the RAW file in Capture one, and saved as a .dng file and opened it in Aperture - all fine, It did change it from 11.8 mb to 24.2, but still, it works, so which is great for a stopgap until Apple proved full support (which I'm sure they will).

 

[Godfrey]

Re: ... DNG understanding ...

... I'm going to PM you about this - I don't think I AM wrong, but it would be more graceful to understand each others points properly and present a united front. Issues of RAW support are important to lots of people, and it's not grand to have one person accusing another of innacuracy unless they are actually certain they're right!

(of course, I may be wrong - I often am - but let's bicker in private

Nothing to get upset about, Jono. I'm happy to be informed of my inaccuracies so that I can correct them too. ;-)

The inaccuracies I referred to were the intimation there was something about what Panasonic was doing with the lens correction metadata that would render the .RW2 files to be "proprietary" and limit you to just their supplied RAW conversion software forever. This is not correct since it is well known that Adobe Lightroom 2.3 and Camera Raw 5.3 fully support RAW conversion of native .RW2 files including the lens correction metadata processing as Panasonic intended.

The DNG situation is just as I wrote it ... with the exception of Apple software support. I went back and tested again with the G1 and standard lens, DNG Converter v5.3 based on your statement that you were unable to get Aperture to load the linearly represented DNG file. And I found that you are correct ... this means that the section of my response which reads:

"- Apple's RAW processing engine is fully capable (now ... *) of reading the G1/LX3/etc .RW2 files which have been converted to linearly represented DNG files and processing them. (I've tested this with the G1 and LX3/DLux-4 files, not the GH1 output.)

* This didn't used to be the case. Apple's Aperture and other RAW processing capable applications at one time would not process *any* DNG files for which they did not have their own, prepackaged camera calibration profile for the orignal camera native RAW files whether the DNG files were written in mosaic or linear form. I always considered that a defective or incomplete DNG support issue on Apple's part, one of the reasons I went with Lightroom instead of Aperture in the first place. "

is in error ...

It turned out that I made two mistakes in testing:
- The "LX3" raw file I tested with was actually an LX1 .RAW file. (Someone on one of the forums supplied me with it, and I didn't think to check the EXIF metadata...)
- The G1 RAW files I tested with were made with an Olympus 35mm Macro lens, thus had no LC metadata in them, thus were mosaic representation DNG files which Aperture (and iPhoto, Preview, et al) can process.

What this means, in short, is that Apple has continued to supply an incomplete, defective implementation of DNG support in the core RAW processing frameworks. Complete, properly implemented DNG support would read the linear representation DNG files as well as the mosaic representation DNG files. This is not a fault with the DNG Specification or Adobe: it is an Apple bug, omission, whatever you want to call it.

All the other RAW processing applications I have that support DNG files support the linearly represented DNG files (iView MediaPro 2.5, LightZone v3.4, Camera Raw v3.7, etc etc). Frankly, I think this incomplete DNG support by Apple is a disgrace.

The rest of my post, dealing with the other options and the issues of Panasonic lens correction metadata vs the DNG Specification, are correct.

Thanks for bringing my error to light. I'm happy to correct it. Now that you don't have to bicker with me, let's go bug Apple to correct their DNG support problems! ;-)

 

[jonoslack]

Ok Godfrey Thanks for that.

I wasn't meaning to imply that Panasonic were limiting support to their own converters at all - simply that this could be the upshot of the move. Producing 'off beat' RAW files for niche cameras inevitably ends up with reduced support in the industry. Even if the intention of the manufacturer is as pure as the driven snow.

How many raw converters will deal with these RW2 files in 5 years?

The DNG situation is just as I wrote it ... with the exception of Apple software support.

Perhaps all the other raw conversion software you have will support linear DNG, but it certainly isn't the case that all other raw software does.

Capture One, for instance, does not support linear DNG files. It does, however, support RAW files from the d-lux4 (which are similar to LX3 - but will not allow a DNG output).

Can you tell me, in practical terms, what the difference between a linear .DNG file and a .TIFF file.? It seems to me that if the demosaicing is done, then all that is left to be dealt with is exposure and colour, and that can be done just as well in an ordinary .TIFF file.?

What this means, in short, is that Apple has continued to supply an incomplete, defective implementation of DNG support in the core RAW processing frameworks. Complete, properly implemented DNG support would read the linear representation DNG files as well as the mosaic representation DNG files. This is not a fault with the DNG Specification or Adobe: it is an Apple bug, omission, whatever you want to call it.

I think that this remark is disengenuous - If I was in charge of development of raw conversion software I'd be very suspicious of providing support for a clumsy backwater of the standard which required that you rely on someone else's demosaicing routine (Adobe's in this instance) - and to be criticised if that routine wasn't good enough.

Just as a matter of interest, is there any other way of getting a linear .dng file except using Adobe's dng converter?

As I pointed out above, Apple certainly aren't the only company which isn't providing support.

I agree with you that Apple should get their act together, but I think they should support new cameras more quickly, rather than supporting nasty big 'half cooked' linear .DNG files. I'd be only too pleased to see them offer support for the G1 and other files.

I understand that you like Lightroom, I have licenses for both Lightroom and Aperture and have worked extensively with each, and they each have their advantages. However, I feel that Adobe put less effort into the conversions for 'lesser' cameras, and the colour and noise for both the E3 and the A900 seem much better on Aperture. Of course, this is just my opinion (but I am certainly not the only person to hold it)

For this reason I don't want to rely on Adobe's demosaicing (not to mention having to deal with huge linear dng files - 3 times the size of the original). I can see why Apple wouldn't want to either.

I still don't believe there were any inaccuracies in my original comments - although of course there were matters of opinion about which you are completely entitled to disagree!
:thumbup: