Doug,
I understand. If you look at the G1 with some tiny primes and the G1 with Nikon primes, you would instantly recognize why I said what I said.
I never said anything bad about the lens "quality". Pointing out some draw backs of any tool ought not to be mixed up with "trashing" a brand or a system and heavens forbid as some kind of a personal attack directed at any person!
FWIW, I have dozens of Nikon lenses.
Vivek,
Oh, I DO understand, and I drool over the concept of the G1 with quality tiny primes.
But $$$$
, and I have a stable full of old nikkors with unique qualities, and if you compare using them on a D200 versus a G1, you see what I am saying
.
The bottom line is I think Panasonic has stolen a march on Nikon and Canon here. If they can attract those of us who are looking for that less hefty camera experience, they have truly carved themselves a good niche.
And of course, the advantage for those of us that would like to use other lenses is clear as well... The biggest obstacle to attracting users of other platforms is their existing glass. Problem solved. It makes for an interesting argument in favor of getting a G1 no matter what set of lenses you have.
For me, I am always looking for that combination of MF experience, quality of images, and lower weight. If I could use a G1, I drop a pound of camera weight, then add in the fact that I can use my smaller primes effectively, and my travel kit becomes much ligher indeed...
So, even though it doesn't match the experience of a CV or Leica lens on a G1, the delta from a D200 and my AF lenses 12-24 Tokina, mf primes, 70-300 AF VR, macro, etc... is on the order of pounds of weight saving if I look at it. Intriguing.
Add in being able to more effectively focus my mf primes, and it gets even more intriguing.
And it was your posts about your work with those tiny primes that got me thinking that way
.
Doug