GF-1 specs announced...

[Godfrey]

Thanks for that info. I would like to see how they do, especially the 20/1.7. I know the AF isn't useful unless it is contrasty light.

HOW do you know this? It has an AF assist illuminator, and if the AF is the same level as my G1, it focuses just fine in flat light even without it.

I'm sure the 20/1.7 will be a good performer. I'm in no hurry, but I will definitely be ordering a GF1/20 kit. Everything I see about this camera appeals to me, can't wait to see it in the flesh and handle it.

 

[Ranger 9]

For those concerned that the GF1's EVF may not be up to the task, the folks on 43Rumors reveal this alternative:

The guy who did it has the original pic on his Flickr stream, along with some pics made with the GF1 and 20/1.7.

Unfortunately, he says the Viso release arm isn't quite angled correctly to hit the GF1's shutter button, so you have to raise the Viso mirror manually...

 

[monza]

I'll stick to my G1, thank you

 

[Vivek]

For those concerned that the GF1's EVF may not be up to the task, the folks on 43Rumors reveal this alternative:

The guy who did it has the original pic on his Flickr stream, along with some pics made with the GF1 and 20/1.7.

Unfortunately, he says the Viso release arm isn't quite angled correctly to hit the GF1's shutter button, so you have to raise the Viso mirror manually...

That (inspite of the viso arm being useless) could make the AF faster (for me) and make the focus selective and not where there is most contrast.:ROTFL:

 

[barjohn]

I haven't seen any reviewer discuss how well the EVF works. Does it have the same blackout issues of the G1? Is it hard or easy to manually focus with it? Does it magnify only the center of the image or the entire image? Given its lower resolution and the same refresh rate is the black out time shorter? Can it follow a moving subject while firing in continuous mode? How does the image look in low light?

If it is the same as the G1 (I have no experience with the GH1 so I can't compare it) then it may only be marginally useful. Better than nothing but not really there.

I have to wonder why they don't just give us a focus confirmation beep and led flash so we could use an optical VF and not have to strain our eyes or magnify the image to get manual focus right.

 

[Diane B]

Dpreview did discuss the EVF briefly. I love the EVF on the G1--prefer it for most shooting to my VF on the 5D. MF is a breeze for me, even in quite low light where I would never be able to MF with a normal VF.

What I got from dpreview was that it is not nearly as good but serviceable when the LCD is unusable (for me that's often in daylight when I can't compose or focus with the LCD) which is all I ask for this camera (I'll use the G1 for iffy MF shooting in low light)
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/PanasonicGF1/page6.asp
There's also some info here http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCGF1/DMCGF1VIEWFINDER.HTM

Diane

 

[barjohn]

I just reread the specs on the G1 and the refresh rate is 180fps versus 60 fps for the GF1 so I wonder whether this will be worth getting. I guess we will have to see what the Leica X1 uses. Maybe it will move me to buy one of those (likely) overpriced beasts.

I was out shooting with the E-P1 on the beach and while I got some good shots it was not due to the LCD viewfinder that I could not really see. It was more of a point it in the right direction, try and prefocus and shoot at the right moment and hope all went well.

A sample shot below.

 

[Ranger 9]

I have to wonder why they don't just give us a focus confirmation beep and led flash so we could use an optical VF and not have to strain our eyes or magnify the image to get manual focus right.

Probably because contrast-detect AF doesn't actually confirm focus -- it doesn't really measure focus at all, only contrast. It has no way of knowing whether a particular contrast level means a low-contrast, in-focus subject or a higher-contrast but out-of-focus subject.

All it can do is monitor how the contrast changes as the AF system operates, moving the lens in whatever direction makes contrast go up and then stopping it when contrast starts to go down again. (It's kind of amazing that Pana can make this work as fast as it does.)

I can imagine designing a manual-focus "peaking" system that would show a red LED if you were turning the focus ring in a direction that reduced contrast and a green LED if you were turning the ring in a direction that increased contrast. You'd focus in whatever direction kept the LED green until it turned from green to red, then reverse direction until it turned from green to red again. But it would be touchy and slow, and I can't imagine most people would be happy with it.

To get a simple, clear-cut, one-shot confirmation of correct focus, you need to use a phase-detect system like those in DSLRs. These actually examine subject details from two different viewpoints and signal correct focus when the detail patterns are "in phase." DSLRs get the image onto the phase detectors by using a secondary mirror pivoted off the back of the main reflex mirror, so there's currently no way to do this with a Micro Four Thirds camera.

However, Nikon recently obtained a patent which appears to provide a way to use rows of pixels on the main sensor as phase detectors, so eventually we may see a true "electronic rangefinder" camera that works this way!

 

[Terry]

Here is a good CDAF read as it talks about how Panny does it.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCGF1/DMCGF1VIDEO.HTM

 

[barjohn]

Ranger9,
Very interesting. I didn't realize this. That means that unless the X1 has an EVF there is no way to do manual focus in bright sunlight where you can't really see the LCD. Folks on LUF are saying it would have a focus confirmation tone but with a live view that wouldn't work. I am starting to think the X1 will be a fixed autofocus only camera with the ability to manually set shutter speed and aperture via dials. Not very exciting given Leica's likely high price.

 

[barjohn]

So what do HD video cameras use for auto focus? You can zoom and they auto adjust for exposure and focus on the fly. How do they do it?

 

[barjohn]

Another sample shot.

 

[Ranger 9]

So what do HD video cameras use for auto focus? You can zoom and they auto adjust for exposure and focus on the fly. How do they do it?

They do it the same way the Pana G1 and GH1 do it -- it's an automated version of the same contrast-peaking process. You've probably noticed that, especially in dim light and/or with low-contrast subjects, they "hunt" and occasionally miss focus just like an AF still camera... which is one reason you still see "focus puller" (person who adjusts focus manually during filming) listed on film credits.

 

[Ranger 9]

Ranger9,
Very interesting. I didn't realize this. That means that unless the X1 has an EVF there is no way to do manual focus in bright sunlight where you can't really see the LCD.

You could still have a beep with a peaking system -- it would need to store the maximum contrast value achieved during focusing and then beep when you got back to that value. It's still a bit fiddly, since the only way you can be sure you've achieved peak contrast is to go past it and then come back to it. But it would be okay for occasional use, especially with a "forgiving" lens with a wide angle of view and a moderate maximum aperture, which seems to be what the X1 will have.

I can imagine the X1 using a manual-focus system somewhat like the one on the Contax T2 film camera. Did you ever happen to use one of those? I had one as my carry-around camera for years. To focus the T2 manually, you'd turn a thumb wheel while watching for an LED to appear in the finder. The LED would flicker on as you approached best focus, stay on for a bit, then go off again.

The whole range through which the LED stayed on was close enough for reasonably good focus; if you were picky, you'd saw back and forth a few times trying to hit exactly the middle of the range. (The T2 used IR focusing rather than contrast-detect, but the "peaking" principle was the same.)

This worked fine for occasional use, given that the T2's 35mm f/2.8 lens didn't require super-accurate focusing and that most of us used the T2's autofocus most of the time. The manual focus was more of a backup, as I expect it will be for the X1.

 

[Ranger 9]

I see from 1001 Noisy Cameras that the Sept. 12 edition of the British weekly Amateur Photographer has an extensive review of the GF1. You can buy an electronic version of the magazine from Zinio -- or just page through it for free on the Zinio site. You get three zoom-ins at no charge, and that's enough to read all of the article except for one page (I skipped the intro page.)

One small but previous-unheard (at least by me) factoid I discovered reading this review is that the 20/1.7 lens doesn't autofocus in Continuous Autofocus mode! Evidently you're limited to single AF or manual. The article doesn't say whether that's true of all the Panasonics or just the GF1, and in any case I can't see this minor limitation as being a deal-breaker. It's just a bit curious, that's all... I wonder why it does that?

 

[Terry]

I see from 1001 Noisy Cameras that the Sept. 12 edition of the British weekly Amateur Photographer has an extensive review of the GF1. You can buy an electronic version of the magazine from Zinio -- or just page through it for free on the Zinio site. You get three zoom-ins at no charge, and that's enough to read all of the article except for one page (I skipped the intro page.)

One small but previous-unheard (at least by me) factoid I discovered reading this review is that the 20/1.7 lens doesn't autofocus in Continuous Autofocus mode! Evidently you're limited to single AF or manual. The article doesn't say whether that's true of all the Panasonics or just the GF1, and in any case I can't see this minor limitation as being a deal-breaker. It's just a bit curious, that's all... I wonder why it does that?

Apparently this lens is a bit slower to focus. From what I've read the elements in the other lenses used for focus are light and can be moved quickly. I think in this design it had to move a lot of glass which slowed it down. So, they probably didn't like the way it worked and disabled it. I don't really use CAF although for video it is useful.

 

[barjohn]

Now that we know more about the Leica X1 I wonder how many m43s users will buy it at $2K+ for a fixed lens camera. Sean Reid seems to intimate that it may have the same sensor as the Nikon D300 which would give it decent high ISO capability. While it doesn't say in the specs he also thinks it may have a weaker anti-aliasing filter than nikon and thus capture more detail. No EVF (a fixed OVF) but a focus confirmation light on the back. The LCD is small and low res so even worse than the E-P1s and not up to the GF-1s. There really isn't much point in MF in a camera with a fixed lens and no real EVF to view in bright sunlight. Even if the images are substantially better than the E-P1 or GF1 I can't see paying $2K for a digital camera with a fixed lens that could be obsoleted next year. At $1K, it is hard enough since you take about a $500 loss if you sell it within a year. To take a $1K loss would be harder for me to swallow.

 

[barjohn]

Here is a quick shot on a California girl modeling for a picture.

 

[Godfrey]

Now that we know more about the Leica X1 I wonder how many m43s users will buy it at $2K+ for a fixed lens camera. Sean Reid seems to intimate that it may have the same sensor as the Nikon D300 which would give it decent high ISO capability. While it doesn't say in the specs he also thinks it may have a weaker anti-aliasing filter than nikon and thus capture more detail. No EVF (a fixed OVF) but a focus confirmation light on the back. The LCD is small and low res so even worse than the E-P1s and not up to the GF-1s. There really isn't much point in MF in a camera with a fixed lens and no real EVF to view in bright sunlight. Even if the images are substantially better than the E-P1 or GF1 I can't see paying $2K for a digital camera with a fixed lens that could be obsoleted next year. At $1K, it is hard enough since you take about a $500 loss if you sell it within a year. To take a $1K loss would be harder for me to swallow.

Yer just a bundle of joy there. ;-)

I dunno, I seem to recall getting lots of good photos with an old Leica Ic that I picked up forty years ago. A 35mm lens, no rangefinder, no viewfinder ... had to scrounge a clip-on viewfinder ... no built in metering, no slow shutter speeds, no preview or review or meter or anything else. Just a nicely made box with a shutter, a way to wind film, and a nice lens.

Seems to me that the Leica X1 has a heck of a lot more than that to help you along. Should be able to make *some* good photos, don'tjathink?

 

[barjohn]

I don't doubt you can make good photos with it as there are many cameras including little cell phone cameras that you can make good photos with (of course it depends on what you mean by good, here I mean pleasing to someone) however it doesn't mean you will be willing to run out and pay $2K for it.