I feel exactly the same except that "retro looking" or not I really don't bother.
I want to see if this GF1 has any improvement sensor wise and in body IS.
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!
New M43 GF1 - Possibly
- Thread starter slosync
- Start date
I want to see if this GF1 has any improvement sensor wise and in body IS.
You have to factor in that the G1/GH1 have the grip which sticks out more also, but I sometimes put the Oly 17 f/2.8 and do exactly what you say--use it in my handbag 'just in case' rather than carrying more. Its quite small enough to do that with the pancake. The 20 f/1.7 would be more to my liking, both FL and faster, so I may sell the 17 and buy the 20 later. However, I wanted something really small and faster this summer so went ahead and bought the 17--which is a nice little lens on the G1 and makes it quite a small package.
Diane
kevinparis
Member
sinwen
at a guess i would reckon that the GF 1 will not have in body stabilisation and I doubt that sensor capabilities will be anything other than mildly incremental if that
I am old and cynical... manufacturers make what fits the market... not what the market wants. With the GF-1 they are only trying to get the same slice of the pie as the EP-1
the G1 was a foot in the water... the GH-1 was what they were really wanting to build... they announced it within weeks of the G1.
I am sure the GF1 will be a fine camera.. but it won't be a major leap forward from the EP-1 performancewise.
still i may be wrong
K
at a guess i would reckon that the GF 1 will not have in body stabilisation and I doubt that sensor capabilities will be anything other than mildly incremental if that
I am old and cynical... manufacturers make what fits the market... not what the market wants. With the GF-1 they are only trying to get the same slice of the pie as the EP-1
the G1 was a foot in the water... the GH-1 was what they were really wanting to build... they announced it within weeks of the G1.
I am sure the GF1 will be a fine camera.. but it won't be a major leap forward from the EP-1 performancewise.
still i may be wrong
K
Godfrey
Well-known member
Why does every new camera need to be "a major leap forward"?
Once upon a time, a camera model was introduced and over a decade or three (I'm exaggerating for effect... ;-) small improvements were made to it over and over and over again. By the middle of the product lifespan, it was very well refined and a delight to use, utterly reliable and consistent in its quality. Look at the Leica M, the Nikon FM, the Rolleiflex, the Nikon F3, the Hasselblad 500, the Minox subminiature. All cameras that had very long production histories that got better with every iteration, subtle and small though they might be.
If we buyers of photographic equipment want a*revolutionary new breakthrough with every new model release, we will never again see the kind of subtle, sustained development and refinement that brought these brilliant cameras of the past to legendary status.
I see the GF1 as an incremental development of the G1 concept, exploiting the micro-FourThirds concept with a smaller form factor with subtly different ergonomic and use options. Yes, it's competition for the E-P1 ... but this is 'a bad thing'? Why? Competition is supposed to improve the breed, not kill it.
I look forward to seeing the GF1. It is actually closer to the camera that I envisaged in 2003 than the G1 and could well appeal to me even more. But if it doesn't, I'm really quite happy with my G1, and L1, and E-1 that I own already.
Once upon a time, a camera model was introduced and over a decade or three (I'm exaggerating for effect... ;-) small improvements were made to it over and over and over again. By the middle of the product lifespan, it was very well refined and a delight to use, utterly reliable and consistent in its quality. Look at the Leica M, the Nikon FM, the Rolleiflex, the Nikon F3, the Hasselblad 500, the Minox subminiature. All cameras that had very long production histories that got better with every iteration, subtle and small though they might be.
If we buyers of photographic equipment want a*revolutionary new breakthrough with every new model release, we will never again see the kind of subtle, sustained development and refinement that brought these brilliant cameras of the past to legendary status.
I see the GF1 as an incremental development of the G1 concept, exploiting the micro-FourThirds concept with a smaller form factor with subtly different ergonomic and use options. Yes, it's competition for the E-P1 ... but this is 'a bad thing'? Why? Competition is supposed to improve the breed, not kill it.
I look forward to seeing the GF1. It is actually closer to the camera that I envisaged in 2003 than the G1 and could well appeal to me even more. But if it doesn't, I'm really quite happy with my G1, and L1, and E-1 that I own already.
Tim
Active member
Yeah, well I wasnt, so don't go making accusations without asking me first - like I said I am a fan of the G1. I think its a reasonable term, its not a pentaprism housing but looks like one - they have been around for years so its reasonable to suggest it looks like one!
Can someone point me to a list of words I'm not allowed to use? :ROTFL:
Last edited:
kevinparis
Member
godfrey... I'm with you....just to be clear... I was downplaying any potential leap forward with the GF-1 as implied by sinwen.
the best camera today is the one you have in your hand when the shot occurs.
Just discovered yesterday my next door neighbour takes great pictures with disposable cameras and a short stepladder
K
the best camera today is the one you have in your hand when the shot occurs.
Just discovered yesterday my next door neighbour takes great pictures with disposable cameras and a short stepladder
K
photoSmart42
New member
Agreed, but at least from the pictures of the cameras next to each other (assuming they're all relatively to scale) it doesn't seem like the G1 grip is all that much larger than the GF1 grip. I suspect that in both cases the lens itself determines the depth of the camera package, and should be very similar. Needless to say we love the G1, so we'll stick with at least one version of it in any event.
Now to figure out which adapter to get (leaning toward the FD one...).
Godfrey
Well-known member
Sorry, it seems that you've misunderstood my words. I tend to write literally and precisely a good bit of the time.
This statement carries no suggestion that that was what you intended. It is a declarative stating that your use of the term seemed like a disparagement of the G1's design, even if you didn't intend it, because others have used the term quite a lot with that intent.
It's just a little plastic cheese-whiz toy camera according to another notable on another forum. So much angst over a camera!
m3photo
New member
Re: "cheese-whiz toy camera"
To coin a famous hardware manufacturer's catch phrase this is the camera with the "Intel Inside"; looking plasticky and toy like on the outside is an advantage here.
And probably according to the general public as a whole, this is precisely why it's such a good camera to carry around and openly take pictures with it without the hassle of "certain people" coming up to you and demanding to know why you are daring to take pictures etc.
To coin a famous hardware manufacturer's catch phrase this is the camera with the "Intel Inside"; looking plasticky and toy like on the outside is an advantage here.
Ben Rubinstein
Active member
Thing is that Panny specifically stated that they were going after a 'traditional' look with the G1 to bring in the buyers, no doubt in Japan. Calling it a pentaprism housing is perhaps innaccuate but exactly what it was designed to look like.
Godfrey
Well-known member
;-)
But do you not agree that there is a difference between the inaccurate but understandable reference as a "pentaprism housing" and the liable-to-be-misinterpreted and implicative term "faux pentaprism housing"?
I was a creative writing student for some years. The actual words used are significant to me. ;-)
pellicle
New member
well, looking at the photos I see otherwise ... the GF1 grip is barely there ...
while the grip on my G1 sticks out a bit
I notice that the dial was moved to the back on the GF images indicating that its quite snug in there
Photomorgana
New member
GF-1 looks good, but I would prefer Ep-1 with panasonic EFV (or should I say Ep-2)
It's very tough to get good help these days. C'est la vie!
I'm thankful that a few people out there are sensitive to this.
Keith
I agree, for what it's worth. Language is important, but, even more so in the environment that we share here.
Quote - Bob Dylan, Airport Press Conference (early sixties)
Reporter: “Would you say you cared about people particularly?”
Dylan: “Well, yeah, but you know ... I mean, we all have our definitions of all those words ... ‘care’ and ‘people.’ “
Reporter: “Well, but surely we know what people are.”
Dylan: “Do we?”
Keith
photoSmart42
New member
Fair enough, but my point about the lens being the determining factor on the bulk of the camera is still valid. With pancake lenses on, they seem similar in bulk to me, certainly enough to justify keeping the viewfinder and the pop-out LCD on the G1. Since I got the G1, I find myself using the VF more than the LCD unless I need to get some off-angle shots and I need to use the LCD.