Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Thom Hogan's GF1 review.

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Thom Hogan's GF1 review.


  2. #2
    Senior Member Brian Mosley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: Thom Hogan's GF1 review.

    Great promotion for m4/3rds imho - when such a highly respected Nikon technical author gives his attention to both offerings.

    No sign of Nikon entering the fray - I'm guessing Sony will be the big one to watch.

    Cheers

    Brian

  3. #3
    Subscriber Member Jonathon Delacour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Thom Hogan's GF1 review.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Mosley View Post
    No sign of Nikon entering the fray - I'm guessing Sony will be the big one to watch.
    And Ricoh will be the small one to watch. I'll put my money on Ricoh's David against Sony's Goliath.

  4. #4
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thom Hogan's GF1 review.

    Interesting read, and fair. He does refer to GF1 'menu madness' although that better describes the E-P1, IMHO. I find the Panasonic menus much easier to navigate, although certainly not perfect.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Rawfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thom Hogan's GF1 review.

    I think this guys is way over his head when it comes to noise. I mean " I'd limit my shooting to ISO 400 and lower my in-camera sharpening value"?!?! "you can get usable ISO 800 images out of the GF1, just like the E-P1"?!?!? I really don't know about the GF1, but the E-P1 can go pretty high when it comes to iso with VERY usable images. I have some samples at iso 4000 and iso 2000 here if someone wants some REAL perspective about the E-P1 with high iso.

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Thom Hogan's GF1 review.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rawfa View Post
    I think this guys is way over his head when it comes to noise. I mean " I'd limit my shooting to ISO 400 and lower my in-camera sharpening value"?!?! "you can get usable ISO 800 images out of the GF1, just like the E-P1"?!?!? I really don't know about the GF1, but the E-P1 can go pretty high when it comes to iso with VERY usable images. I have some samples at iso 4000 and iso 2000 here if someone wants some REAL perspective about the E-P1 with high iso.
    On that point, Thom is right on the money!

    ISO3200, even on the Nikon D300, is a big stretch when it comes to "usable" images.

  7. #7
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thom Hogan's GF1 review.

    Hi

    his comment on battery life is a worry:

    My maximum shots per charge was somewhere just below 300 (I was shooting only raw and using the LCD a bit more than usual), but my average was somewhere slightly below 200
    my G1 is way over this

  8. #8
    Senior Member Rawfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thom Hogan's GF1 review.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    On that point, Thom is right on the money!

    ISO3200, even on the Nikon D300, is a big stretch when it comes to "usable" images.
    I really think that iso 800 is not on the money at all...unless you're planning to have your pictures published on a magazine or a giant outdoor.

  9. #9
    deep.space
    Guest

    Re: Thom Hogan's GF1 review.

    Hello! I am trying to find a m4/3 camera that will require the least modifications to mount a very fast Fujinon TV lens i bought. Since the back of the lens protrudes into the camera body, could somebody kindly measure the FLANGE to SHUTTER distance, possibly down to the 10th of millimeter? To be more specific: from the outer, surface metal rim to the closest point that will not block the shutter curtain of the GF1. Thanks Bart

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Thom Hogan's GF1 review.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rawfa View Post
    I really think that iso 800 is not on the money at all...unless you're planning to have your pictures published on a magazine or a giant outdoor.
    Yup, "usable" image is a very subjective description.

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Thom Hogan's GF1 review.

    Quote Originally Posted by deep.space View Post
    Hello! I am trying to find a m4/3 camera that will require the least modifications to mount a very fast Fujinon TV lens i bought. Since the back of the lens protrudes into the camera body, could somebody kindly measure the FLANGE to SHUTTER distance, possibly down to the 10th of millimeter? To be more specific: from the outer, surface metal rim to the closest point that will not block the shutter curtain of the GF1. Thanks Bart
    Bart, Start a separate thread giving more details (focal length, any pics, etc).
    Do not expect to get what you ask here as it is a very difficult task!

  12. #12
    Senior Member Rawfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thom Hogan's GF1 review.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Yup, "usable" image is a very subjective description.
    That’s what I was about to say and that’s why I don’t really think it’s fair to make such a strong statement as the one he makes on the review. And even if the concept of “usable” is subjective there’s a general base line consensus among certain communities…so again I must insist that this guy’s review sounds extremely oriented to a very specific target audience. I have read dozens of reviews and this is the first time I’ve read such a poor rating regarding high iso. But hey, my results and I can only speak for the E-P1. Taking in considaration that I tend to buy the GF1 I sure hope iso 400 and 800 are not the top line for “usable”.

    P.S - I'm a member of a couple of massive Nikon and Canon forums and I know Canon and Nikon people can be very much the fanatic type...I'm not so sure about how bisased this guy really is.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Lars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    1,811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    Re: Thom Hogan's GF1 review.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rawfa View Post
    P.S - I'm a member of a couple of massive Nikon and Canon forums and I know Canon and Nikon people can be very much the fanatic type...I'm not so sure about how bisased this guy really is.
    Bias aside, Thom is used to the noise performance of D3/D700. If you view Thom's comments in that context then perhaps they make more sense.
    Monochrome: http://mochro.com

  14. #14
    Member Nick_Yoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    28

    Re: Thom Hogan's GF1 review.

    Not very biased, if you read his comparison of the Panasonic LX3, Canon G10 and Nikon P6000. The Nikon is the only one he advised against buying.

    "If you need pixels, you need the Canon, hands down. If you need the fast, wide, defect-free lens, you need the Panasonic. You don't need the Coolpix."

    http://www.bythom.com/compactchallenge.htm
    Last edited by Nick_Yoon; 28th October 2009 at 08:08. Reason: added info

  15. #15
    Senior Member Rawfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thom Hogan's GF1 review.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lars Vinberg View Post
    Bias aside, Thom is used to the noise performance of D3/D700. If you view Thom's comments in that context then perhaps they make more sense.
    That does make sense...but only for people who know Thom, and I think an equipment review should not require that you actually know the reviewer.

  16. #16
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Thom Hogan's GF1 review.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rawfa View Post
    That does make sense...but only for people who know Thom, and I think an equipment review should not require that you actually know the reviewer.
    Yes, he is a self proclaimed Nikon "follower" he is also a sooth sayer. Predicted that Olympus will be no more.

    I like "Rockwell" better.

  17. #17
    Senior Member Rawfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thom Hogan's GF1 review.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Yes, he is a self proclaimed Nikon "follower" he is also a sooth sayer. Predicted that Olympus will be no more.

    I like "Rockwell" better.
    Hahahaha...you HAVE to know Rockwell to get THIS post

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Thom Hogan's GF1 review.

    Here is the prediction:

    http://www.bythom.com/2009predictions.htm

    "Rockwell" is funnier.

  19. #19
    deep.space
    Guest

    Re: Thom Hogan's GF1 review.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Bart, Start a separate thread giving more details (focal length, any pics, etc).
    Do not expect to get what you ask here as it is a very difficult task!
    Thanks Vivek I will do so,
    but the task is actually very simple and straighforward.
    All you need is a vernier caliper
    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...er_caliper.svg
    and gauge the height with the (3) depth probe. 5 minutes work
    Bart

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thom Hogan's GF1 review.

    I agree a separate thread is probably better; that said, there is a thread from December/January (or so) about M adapters for micro 4/3 and there were some measurements posted, the question was concerning the 21mm Super Angulon...don't forget the baffle around the shutter, that may be the limiting measurement...

  21. #21
    deep.space
    Guest

    Re: Thom Hogan's GF1 review.

    Quote Originally Posted by monza View Post
    I agree a separate thread is probably better; that said, there is a thread from December/January (or so) about M adapters for micro 4/3 and there were some measurements posted, the question was concerning the 21mm Super Angulon...don't forget the baffle around the shutter, that may be the limiting measurement...
    Thanks, I will check that as well. Yes, the baffle is probably the limiting factor...
    B.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •