Panasonic G2 and G10 announced

[Y.B.Hudson III]

Yehh... Godfrey... go out an take a piccie wif your toy lenses, and the try a modern cine Lens and get b@cK to me ... Holysmokes, you mean you can actually take a pic with shadow detail without blown highlight in bright sun...with luminous microcontrast across the complete gray scale...



Hudson

 

[Terry]

Yehh... Godfrey... go out an take a piccie wif your toy lenses, and the try a modern cine Lens and get b@cK to me ... Holysmokes, you mean you can actually take a pic with shadow detail without blown highlight in bright sun...with luminous microcontrast across the complete gray scale...



Hudson

Why not post some pictures with the lenses....all the posts are so over the top sarcastic.

 

[Jonas]

We always seem to talk about sensor size (...) I personally prefer the 4:3 ratio. The vertical height of the two sensors are pretty close.

For the most of what I do I crop to 1.1 or close to 1:1. In that sense I agree about the minimal difference between the sensors. Then again, sometimes I do panos, sometimes I crop to 16:9 and sometimes...

So, speaking area is OK. My point was that an area 50% larger is pretty much the same.

regards,

/Jonas

 

[Godfrey]

Yehh... Godfrey... go out an take a piccie wif your toy lenses, and the try a modern cine Lens and get b@cK to me ... Holysmokes, you mean you can actually take a pic with shadow detail without blown highlight in bright sun...with luminous microcontrast across the complete gray scale...

I don't know what "toy lenses" you're referring to. I don't own any "toy lenses", other than the cine lenses I bought for a lark. Nowhere near the performance of even the kit lens for the Panasonic G1, but fun to play with.

Go on being sarcastic, making mindless snipes and meaningless comments.

 

[clark666]

I am looking to replace/add-to my E-620. So, the G-2 looks good to me. I will keep the E-620 if the AF doesn't work as well on my 50-200mm. Them BIFs is quick.

 

[tripper]

" Nobody does 'off topic' quite like this forum, it's very quaint "

Oops ! did I nearly throw teddy out the pushchair ?

Pellicle asked after in my initial post when I said I would handle the G2 soon

" . do let us know what you think tripper! "

So I posted a few brief thoughts but by then it was buried in lots of 'off topic' :talk028:.

It's ok I'm over it now :angel:

tripper

 

[Vivek]

Why not post some pictures with the lenses....all the posts are so over the top sarcastic.

Terry, He does. Earlier you pointed out about me not mentioning lenses/gear to the pics I have posted.

Here is the problem: Godfrey with his vision (IMHO) is better off posting his interpretations of others' posts in the sunset bar or images to share section than coming to a gear section to be a pseudo spokesperson for Pana while saying that pics matter and not the gear. We all go through that tussle. Few (like Godfrey) take it out on other contributors.

Hudson (like me and a few others here) uses many lenses, knows the differences and shows what a good one can accomplish.

Whether one likes it or not, the fact is that m4/3rds is in the news not for the fly by wire lenses made for them but the ability to use many different (manual focus) lenses.

 

[Terry]

Terry, He does. Earlier you pointed out about me not mentioning lenses/gear to the pics I have posted.

Here is the problem: Godfrey with his vision (IMHO) is better off posting his interpretations of others' posts in the sunset bar or images to share section than coming to a gear section to be a pseudo spokesperson for Pana while saying that pics matter and not the gear. We all go through that tussle. Few (like Godfrey) take it out on other contributors.

Hudson (like me and a few others here) uses many lenses, knows the differences and shows what a good one can accomplish.

Whether one likes it or not, the fact is that m4/3rds is in the news not for the fly by wire lenses made for them but the ability to use many different (manual focus) lenses.

I guess I don't go through every post on the alternate lens threads. On the main 4/3 gear threads or in the "Fun with" threads there haven't really been any pictures.
My comment had nothing to do with Godfrey's comments.
I don't agree with your assessment of m4/3. Surely there is a contingent of people using the m4/3 cameras with alternate glass but I don't agree that the mainstream adoption of the format is all about the MF lenses. I would bet if you could poll all the users (not just forum members) of m4/3, the vast majority aren't using cine glass and other exotic manual focus lenses.

 

[Vivek]

My comment had nothing to do with Godfrey's comments.
I don't agree with your assessment of m4/3. Surely there is a contingent of people using the m4/3 cameras with alternate glass but I don't agree that the mainstream adoption of the format is all about the MF lenses. I would bet if you could poll all the users (not just forum members) of m4/3, the vast majority aren't using cine glass and other exotic manual focus lenses.

There is something even better than polling. Take a cursory look at the threads here. You would find many threads asking about (or discussing about) adapters, lenses, focusing, reversing a fly by wire lens to do macro, etc.

Many fora like dp revs and other new ones dissect the usual things that many digital chat fora do.


Very few buy only the "system" lenses while many (if not all) might also have other lenses (particularly the kitzooms) made for m4/3rds.

There is a difference between 'want' and what is there.

 

[Y.B.Hudson III]

pics for Terry...

gray card exposures. equal treatments in CS4 levels, Raw Developer B&W conversions.

Cooke Speed Panchro Ser III 25mm @ f/2.8

Panasonic 20mm @ f/2.8


I rest my case... *


There's a reason 25mm has been a Normal focal length for the academy ratio... as my poney said ... "does this lens make me look fat?".

20mm distortion, a discussion for another night.







Cheers Hudson**



** sorry no book cases or parking lots were harmed in this shoot.

 

[pellicle]

pics for Terry...

sorry, I looked too...

I rest my case... *

umm ... which was?

20mm distortion, a discussion for another night.

umm ... do you mean the fact that it captures more background and you need to be closer with it than a more tele lens?

** sorry no book cases or parking lots were harmed in this shoot.

but the pony seems to have been putting on weight....

 

[Y.B.Hudson III]

sorry, I looked too...


umm ... which was?

The 20mm panny lacks luminance in shadows and midtones ... I guess panny's software fixes for optics still needs some work...

umm ... do you mean the fact that it captures more background and you need to be closer with it than a more tele lens?

to quote Wiki...In photography and cinematography a normal lens is a lens that reproduces perspective that generally looks "natural" to a human observer under normal viewing conditions, as compared with lenses with longer or shorter focal lengths which produce an expanded or contracted field-of-view.

but the pony seems to have been putting on weight....

yehh... whiLe i was changing lenses


chEErs Hudson

 

[Tullio]

...
There's a reason 25mm has been a Normal focal length for the academy ratio... as my poney said ... "does this lens make me look fat?...".

The angle between the two shots is slightly different. On the first, you were placed more in front of the pony while on the second you were more toward the middle. Thus, the second image makes it look heavier. I'm not saying that the 20mm does not have its share bit of distortion, I'm just pointing it out the differences that may induce one to think that the pony is fatter because of the lens (this is like one of those before/after pictures so frequently used (or misused) in commercials to show the significant improvements the product can produce).

 

[Tonygamble]

Not sure which thread to post this as there are two almost identical ones running about the old and new generation of G's.

I have just got back from Focus in Birmingham. As I have posted earlier I am a committed EOS owner with a 1d, a 5d and a 350d - with a Ricoh GRD2 belonging to my wife. The 5d is my workhorse for around where I live. The GRD2 goes on every holiday/excursion and the 350d when it's a trip where the Ricoh might struggle.

Until eight hours ago I had never held a G. I am not interested in a camera without a 'proper' viewfinder so I looked at the G1, the G10, the G2 and a Canon 550d.

First impression is how much heavier the Canon feels with a lens of similar focal length to the Pannys.

Second impression is how much the viewfinder has been degraded for the G10. So much so that I'd worry that I could not see the expressions on people's faces when taking portraits.

Third impression was that, for me as a G newbie, I wonder whether the new tricks of the G2, such as touch screen, better video, are useful enough at a time when there will be quite a price difference.

Conclusion. Yes, it would be lovely to upgrade from my 350 to the 550 and continue to use the same lenses - but if the object of the investment is to get a travel camera that weighs quite a lot less then the G1 is the answer (almost certainly abandoning the kit lens and having the short zoom and the pancake).

Hope this is not too trite for you experienced 4/3 folk - but I guess not many of you have had hands on experience of the new stuff yet.

Tony

 

[Diane B]

Thanks Tony. Hands on is always helpful. Its also helpful to me as a 5D shooter. I just sold my 400D--as my G1 fits into that slot--and more. I, too, found last year before I bought my G1 (Dec. 08) that the 400D with my EF lenses didn't give me much 'small' camera feel LOL.

I appreciate your comment on the G10 EVF as that's important to me. I had been considering it for conversion to IR--but perhaps the G2 and have my 'old' G1 converted if I go this route (just sold my 10DIR--for same reason as the 400D--if I'm going to do IR--its peripheral to my normal shooting and I don't want to carry yet another large body). I'm guessing that the G2 has the same MF assist as the GF!--one button push on dial--and this is something I use a lot. Or--you might not have known this--for quick close up with AF, you simply turn the focus ring--that would help with close up of expressions.

Likely for your needs the G1 or G2 would be better.

Diane

Not sure which thread to post this as there are two almost identical ones running about the old and new generation of G's.

I have just got back from Focus in Birmingham. As I have posted earlier I am a committed EOS owner with a 1d, a 5d and a 350d - with a Ricoh GRD2 belonging to my wife. The 5d is my workhorse for around where I live. The GRD2 goes on every holiday/excursion and the 350d when it's a trip where the Ricoh might struggle.

Until eight hours ago I had never held a G. I am not interested in a camera without a 'proper' viewfinder so I looked at the G1, the G10, the G2 and a Canon 550d.

First impression is how much heavier the Canon feels with a lens of similar focal length to the Pannys.

Second impression is how much the viewfinder has been degraded for the G10. So much so that I'd worry that I could not see the expressions on people's faces when taking portraits.

Third impression was that, for me as a G newbie, I wonder whether the new tricks of the G2, such as touch screen, better video, are useful enough at a time when there will be quite a price difference.

Conclusion. Yes, it would be lovely to upgrade from my 350 to the 550 and continue to use the same lenses - but if the object of the investment is to get a travel camera that weighs quite a lot less then the G1 is the answer (almost certainly abandoning the kit lens and having the short zoom and the pancake).

Hope this is not too trite for you experienced 4/3 folk - but I guess not many of you have had hands on experience of the new stuff yet.

Tony

 

[Y.B.Hudson III]

The angle between the two shots is slightly different. On the first, you were placed more in front of the pony while on the second you were more toward the middle. Thus, the second image makes it look heavier. I'm not saying that the 20mm does not have its share bit of distortion, I'm just pointing it out the differences that may induce one to think that the pony is fatter because of the lens (this is like one of those before/after pictures so frequently used (or misused) in commercials to show the significant improvements the product can produce).

Guilty as charged

 

[pellicle]

Tony

not sure if youre after comments, but if you aren't just don't read this

I have just got back from Focus in Birmingham. As I have posted earlier I am a committed EOS owner with a 1d, a 5d and a 350d - with a Ricoh GRD2 belonging to my wife. The 5d is my workhorse for around where I live. The GRD2 goes on every holiday/excursion and the 350d when it's a trip where the Ricoh might struggle.

sounds a fair and reasonable arrangement.

Until eight hours ago I had never held a G. I am not interested in a camera without a 'proper' viewfinder so I looked at the G1, the G10, the G2 and a Canon 550d.

First impression is how much heavier the Canon feels with a lens of similar focal length to the Pannys.

precisely why I dropped my 20D and 10D systems.

Back in Jan 2009 I was eyeing the G1 ... memories of dragging my 10D and 12-24 around india for 2 months were fresh in my mind.

Second impression is how much the viewfinder has been degraded for the G10.

yes, I'd regard it as a framing tool.

Third impression was that, for me as a G newbie, I wonder whether the new tricks of the G2, such as touch screen, better video, are useful enough at a time when there will be quite a price difference.

as a G1 owner I'll say they are not

if you're not afraid of the used market grab a used G1 and you'll get it for under $400 I reckon.

Conclusion. Yes, it would be lovely to upgrade from my 350 to the 550 and continue to use the same lenses - but if the object of the investment is to get a travel camera that weighs quite a lot less then the G1 is the answer (almost certainly abandoning the kit lens and having the short zoom and the pancake).

again, sounds fair. I would not under-rate the std zoom ... the 14-45 is a good lens. I'd couple it with just a 50mm f1.8 (pick your brand) and perhaps a light 80-100 and you'll have a very capable outfit. I've recently bought the 45-200 and didn't think so much of it. Compared to my FD 200f4 its optically inferior.

http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2010/02/panasonic-45-200mm.html

I divested myself of much of my EOS gear over the recent years, and starting with 4x5 back in 1999 helped that along considerably. Still to this point in time I find that when I want 'contemplative landscape' my 4x5 gives what nothing else can, but when I want a travel light camera I think that the G1 is great.

On a recent trip to bits of Spain and Italy I took just my G1 + 9-18mm + 14-45 + 200mmf4 I'm sure it weighed about the same as my 10D and Tokina 12-24 alone.

selected images are here for you to get an idea of the sorts of range that gives.

hth

 

[Godfrey]

I guess I don't go through every post on the alternate lens threads. On the main 4/3 gear threads or in the "Fun with" threads there haven't really been any pictures.
My comment had nothing to do with Godfrey's comments.
I don't agree with your assessment of m4/3. Surely there is a contingent of people using the m4/3 cameras with alternate glass but I don't agree that the mainstream adoption of the format is all about the MF lenses. I would bet if you could poll all the users (not just forum members) of m4/3, the vast majority aren't using cine glass and other exotic manual focus lenses.

I hardly read a tenth of the messages posted to this forum either. I'm too busy working on photographs. The punters who want to make distinctions between the "equipment" and "photographic" posting sections on this forum are being ridiculous. There is no such distinction that I can determine.

And I'm not a spokes person for Panasonic, Vivek. I use their equipment, that's all. Currently quite happy using the G1 with their 20mm and 45mm lenses (still on loan from my friend). And it's excellent equipment. I have other lenses too, of course. The cine lenses I purchased are for fun ... they don't perform as well as the Panasonic and Olympus lenses designed for the format in any quantitative measure but they provide interesting rendering qualities to play with.

But Hudson's bs was about the adoption and use of software correction in the design of lenses and how we should be oh so sorry to lose something or other. Panasonic includes software correction parameters even in the superb Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH ... it completely eradicates the small amount of residual chromatic aberration in that lens. This is a bad thing?

Trying to have a useful discussion on these forums is forever enervating with nonsense like that to contend with.

 

[Tonygamble]

Two interesting replies. Thank you.

You talk about the G10 EVF being more of a framing device. Good until you are doing portraits. I would be interested when others catch up with this thread and as to whether they'd be worried about just how 'fuzzy' it is. I actually felt the dioptre adjuster was not working properly on the two camera I tried.

I suppose you could work with the free eye open - but that depends on how you hold the camera.

Tony

 

[Y.B.Hudson III]

Diopter correction's a plus... so are re@ding glasses...