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!

G1 Review on PopPhoto

Brian Mosley

New member
Ben, I think you're missing the value of pleasing the minority of legacy lens users.

I think there's a high proportion of us on the forums, waxing lyrical about the G1... which probably has quite a knock on effect in favour of the G1 generally.

The G1 is cool... buy one now! lol (coming from a happy Hexanon lens owner - now able to focus reliably for the first time with a digital camera)

Kind Regards

Brian
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
I'm not knocking it Brian, not at all, just saying that perhaps mass read reviews and panasonics marketing departement are not specifically geared to a niche use. For someone to ridicule a review for saying that there are few lenses just because of the ability to use manual focus lenses with a seperately bought adaptor is to me a bit skewed relative to the 99% of people buying the camera.
 

barjohn

New member
Ben,
Folks like us that are enthusiasts because we have discovered a new creative tool have a disproportionate influence on many buyers beyond our own numbers. Any one looking on the Internet for information on the camera will be led to sights like this one and DPR which will influence them one way or the other.
 
B

Bhakti-rider

Guest
I was influenced to order a G1 by web reviews and sample images; this site figured prominently in that. I've never had a German lens in my life, and I don't anticipate buying any. I do look forward though to something faster than the two Panasonic lenses. My use for the G1 will be for occasions when photography isn't the only or main reason for being somewhere; most importantly riding motorcycles. For occasions when photography is the primary reason, well, I've got a 40D and some superb lenses, and might even get a 1D3 (or its successor for the LCD) one day.

I worked for CDC for nine years (as a programmer/analyst), and I've seen few organizations that were so poorly run - one is NASA.

I really want to thank all the knowledgeable people who devote time to provide help and encouragement to others on this forum. I haven't spent any significant time on DPReview, so I can't relate to the negative connotations I see about it on FM, but FM itself has its own crew of obnoxiously arrogant people who go into attack mode at the drop of a hat, and I haven't seen that here in the relatively short time since I learned of this site (by a post on FM).
 

peterb

Member
Ben,

I think you're right in that what Panasonic may have been thinking in terms of marketing this camera is one thing. In fact, I saw a German microsite for the G1 that is (A) VERY cool. And, to your point I think, (B) VERY feminine as evidenced by this microsite they put up: http://www.panasonic.eu/lumixg/de-de/

The thing that's neat about technology is that once it's put in human hands, anything can happen.

The thing is, most of the time, a new gadget is used in exactly the way it was intended. And, thus, nothing changes. This typically occurs when the change is more evolutionary than revolutionary.

But every once in a while, something else happens. And a piece of technology is offered that is perused, picked on, taken apart and analyzed. And people for whom it was not intended see all kinds of possibilities the inventors may not have intended. And suddenly there's excitement that's beyond what was expected. It happened with the Internet as a means of exchanging ideas among academics and government agencies. And, while not nearly on the scale of the Internet, such may be the case, I think, now with the G1.

What started out as a means of bridging the point-and-shoot universe with the traditional SLR universe may have torn the fabric a little (boy I'm gettin' into it deep here) and opened up an entirely new universe altogether.

Why else would companies suddenly race to develop lens adapters for this thing? Why else would we see so much buzz on these forums about its image-making ability.

Because the excitement has taken hold.

So what started out as a semi-serious toy (albeit and expensive one) that came in three colors may have the makings of serious picture making machine that can hold its own with the big boys.

Just some thoughts.

Peter
 

barjohn

New member
Peter,

I think you are right on. It is sure causing some consternation on the LUF forum in the comparison thread with the M8. The reality that few there might want to face is that if an image from each using the same lens but cropped to the same image dimensions and tweaked to its optimum with the EXIF data removed they would be hard pressed to say which camera made which one. I have both M8 images and G1 images and if I tweak the colors so they are close it would be hard to tell.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Peter,

I think you are right on. It is sure causing some consternation on the LUF forum in the comparison thread with the M8. The reality that few there might want to face is that if an image from each using the same lens but cropped to the same image dimensions and tweaked to its optimum with the EXIF data removed they would be hard pressed to say which camera made which one. I have both M8 images and G1 images and if I tweak the colors so they are close it would be hard to tell.
I agree and it speaks well of the G1 that it's even being compared to equipment roughly 10x the cost (with a lens included.)

I still think the M8 outperforms the G1 overall but it's supposed to. The think a lot of people over at LUF have an elitist attitude towards anything without a red dot. I once suggest before Photokina (and afterwards) that Leica should introduce a real enthusiast product in the $800-2000 range as a stop gap between the D-Lux 3 and the M8. I thought the market could really bear something that was different and smaller than what Canon and Nikon offers in dSLR's. Quite a few people had the attitude that it would be complete trash for anything less than $3000... Go figure than the G1 at about $700 ($800 when introduced) is getting everyone excited for an everyday enthusiast product. What did I know?
 
K

kiloran

Guest
Ben,

I think you're right in that what Panasonic may have been thinking in terms of marketing this camera is one thing. In fact, I saw a German microsite for the G1 that is (A) VERY cool. And, to your point I think, (B) VERY feminine as evidenced by this microsite they put up: http://www.panasonic.eu/lumixg/de-de/
Agree - first thing my partner said when she picked the camera up was that she liked how it felt, followed by how small it was, and then how easy it was to see through the viewfinder. Once I told her it was also available in red and blue that was it ;)

Female-friendly cameras: have to be the ultimate for any attached gearhead :LOL:
 

peterb

Member
The other thing about this age of technology is that as it marches on price loses its meaning. How long can a $5500 camera (like the M8) remain worth $5500 when a camera like the G1 comes along and shows not only that someone else can use its optics (without the need of a filter to compensate for some anomalies) but the images are on a par with it.

The M8 held the market on svelte until the G1 suddenly appeared. Now it's uniqueness is starting to look less unique. (And it's only a matter of time before someone resolves the rangefinder vs EVF vs some hybrid of both issue.)

This happens not only between companies but more commonly within companies. Look at the Nikon's D700 vs their D3 and now the Canon 5DmkII vs the D1swhatever.

Netscape was bested by Explorer which was bested by Firefox. The computer I'm writing this missive on is a dual-core Intel powerhouse with 130GB of internal storage that I purchased a year ago for $450. A computer that surely would have commanded $4000 had someone even attempted making one a scant three years ago.

Crazy no?

Peter
 

barjohn

New member
The other big area that Leica is rapidly missing the boat on is lenses. Yes, it is nice to build lenses the way they always have using brass, aluminum & titanium; however, other vendors have shown that modern plastics can be used in the construction of lens barrels that last for many years, reduce manufacturing costs, are lighter and allow for lower priced mass production. Many of these lenses have excellent optics, ED glass, aspherical elements and sell for a fraction of Leica prices. More importantly, they are getting better, meaning that the day will come when the difference will be so small that Leica will no longer be competitive in this market either. They really need to learn to think out of the past box. Making slower lenses to sell for less rather than reducing costs across the product line is not the solution. Look at the Oly 25/2.8 for $229, very high quality optics at an affordable price and relatively fast. If the coming 20/1.7 is anywhere near that price they won't be able to make them fast enough.

Leica needs to learn to leverage off of their strength in lens optical design and now learn how to make it for a lower cost. There is no reason that with manufacturing automation they can't be competitive with Japanese manufacturers. They never will be as long as their mindset doesn't change. If they went into the M43 lens business, they could command a premium over Oly or Panasonic and have a mass market product. Even CV and Ziess have been slow to recognize the opportunity but they are catching on faster than Leica.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Agreed. While CV lenses aren't quite as nice as M lenses some of them do offer similar optical quality for a very small fraction of the price M lenses command. I know many Leicaphiles shun the notion but the proof is in many of the results I've seen on LUF and RFF.

After I get my G1 I may look into the CV lenses with an adapter to fill the prime lens gaps not being offered by m4/3 should I feel the urge to add certain focal lecal lengths.
 

peterb

Member
Peter,

It is sure causing some consternation on the LUF forum in the comparison thread with the M8. The reality that few there might want to face is that if an image from each using the same lens but cropped to the same image dimensions and tweaked to its optimum with the EXIF data removed they would be hard pressed to say which camera made which one. I have both M8 images and G1 images and if I tweak the colors so they are close it would be hard to tell.
John,

I've been reading a lot of those threads and some of those folks are out-and-out apoplectic at the idea of an interloper like the G1 horning in on their turf! In fact, I'd go so far to say that some of them may be on the verge of having a stroke!

The interesting thing is, people for the most part buy Leica bodies for privilege of using their lenses on them. Yeah you can get Cosina and Zeiss (which some have argued have certain optics that are far superior to the Leitz at some focal lengths at a fraction of the costs), but the vast majority buy Leica bodies for the optics.

At the dawn (or, rather late morning) of the digital age Leitz insisted that a digital rangefinder was not possible with their optics. Then Epson's CEO who had a fondness for rangefinders charged his troops to come out with a respectable camera that would utilize Leitz legendary optics and Leitz had to re-think their position. The result was the M8, a digital version of the illustrious line of film cameras that had preceded it.

Leitz of course not wanting to compromise their vaunted optics opted not to have anything stand between their lenses and their sensors. That position resulted in Leitz having to issue IR filters for all their optics for use on their DRF that resulted in defeating their initial purpose in the first place. Costs for the privilege of using M lenses in the digital age went up even further.

The problem with the appearance of the G1 on the horizon suggests there's an alternative (almost the same way Epson's line in the sand changed Leitz hardened positions). And that's changed the whole paradigm. Some like Sean Reid have argued that an EVF no matter how pristine is ultimately flawed. And that the rangefinder incorporated in the M8 gives it a distinct advantage over other viewing systems. On face value, I whole heartedly agree. But is that difference worth the extra 4.8 kilobucks to get that? For a machined body that is no where near as secure from the elements as the G1? WIth a sensor and firmware that are only as good as the moment they appear on the scene but constantly live in fear of betterment through advances in technology and software? When you factor all that into the equation then I'm not sure.

As far as lens construction and cutting costs go, you may have a point. Today's plastics are certainly far better than the plastics of yore. I think Leitz has always maintained a position that materials should be chosen ONLY where they offer a clear superiority over others. That said, I seem to recall Leitz arguing that metals seem to hold their glass better in mounts than plastic ones do. And that plastics are better as aperture rings and lens hoods. And that metals (like brass and aluminum) are chosen for how well their heating coefficients of expansion are. Leitz trying to make sure their lenses can be used in ANY environment (which curiously cannot be said of the M8!) have chosen to make their lens construction of materials that would perform as intended whether in the Arctic or the Brazillian Rain forest or the arid wasteland of Afghanistan.

That would explain why so many like Sean Reid are excited that the G1 may be offering an alternative body that can utilize Leitz ptics dating back to the 30's. That speaks well of Leitz' dogmatic, no-holds-barred approach to lens construction. An approach that has served them well. (So well, in fact, that as a result of their over built approach to lens construction, Leitz has been forced to continually up the performance of their lenses otherwise no one would buy anything new from them when there were so many good optics in the global inventory!)

Should Leitz offer lenses constructed using the similar approaches that Nikon and Canon feel can be had? Hard to say. On the one hand from what I can tell, for certain high powered optics even Nikon and Canon are in the Leitz camp of all metal construction. (And the prices of those optics reflect that decision.) But what about shorter lenses? Do they need to be finished to the degree that Leitz (and Zeiss) do it?

Some may say no. And that may be worth considering. Others have expressed appreciation of the solidity of the metal lens construction. And how it makes the lens 'feel' worthy of the stellar price it commanded.

On the other hand, why not? After all, how many of us really subject our cameras to the kind of daily abuse Leitz envisions? An occasional roughness now and then but not day in and day out. (This is akin to asking someone do they really need a HUMMER when a Honda CR-V will go to the convenient store just as easily to pick up a quart of milk?)

My thinking is yes and no. Would I like to see Leitz optics that are finished to the nth degree and priced accordingly? You betcha. Would I like to see some Leitz optics finished to sufficiently withstand the daily rigors of typical usage by the vast majority of those likely to use their optics? You betcha.

Let's see.

Peter
 
Last edited:

nostatic

New member
One reason I like Pentax is that they still make all-metal lenses. While there may actually enhanced performance using plastics in the construction, the "user interface" should not be underplayed, and to borrow from Porsche, "there is no substitute" when comparing the feel of machined metal vs. plastic/composite.

Maybe it is retro or old-school, but business is about differentiation, and building lenses out of metal is what sets some camera makers apart. If they change, then they are into Canikon territory where they likely cannot compete. The body is one thing - that is the heart of the "tech" which roughly follows Moore's law. The lens is another, and I think there will always be a place for someone who sticks with a design aesthetic combined with performance.

Then again, I'm a heretic because I've never found the M8 to be particularly svelte. To me it is an anachronism that is big on vibe and aesthetic, arguable has good output (if you're willing to work it), but "svelte"? That word doesn't come to mind when I hold it. Of course it is all relative...I suppose next to a D3 it is a little lighter and smaller, but compared to something like the G1 and what could come of that?
 

peterb

Member
One reason I like Pentax is that they still make all-metal lenses. While there may actually enhanced performance using plastics in the construction, the "user interface" should not be underplayed, and to borrow from Porsche, "there is no substitute" when comparing the feel of machined metal vs. plastic/composite.

Maybe it is retro or old-school, but business is about differentiation, and building lenses out of metal is what sets some camera makers apart. If they change, then they are into Canikon territory where they likely cannot compete. The body is one thing - that is the heart of the "tech" which roughly follows Moore's law. The lens is another, and I think there will always be a place for someone who sticks with a design aesthetic combined with performance.

Then again, I'm a heretic because I've never found the M8 to be particularly svelte. To me it is an anachronism that is big on vibe and aesthetic, arguable has good output (if you're willing to work it), but "svelte"? That word doesn't come to mind when I hold it. Of course it is all relative...I suppose next to a D3 it is a little lighter and smaller, but compared to something like the G1 and what could come of that?
Excellent point about the 'user interface'. Most of the reviews I've read on Leitz and Zeiss often include a sentence or two waxing on about the smoothness of the mechanism or the 'solidity' of feel. Very important considerations that help communicate value to the user in terms of the experience.

As for using the word 'svelte' well...I agree that's subjective. One photographer's svelte is another shooter's Rubenesque.

For the most part I've found most digital translations of the film versions that once held sway to be fatter, chubbier and clubbier than what existed before. Aside from the the Olympus' teeny DSLR (I forget which model number but it's here on this 4/3s section), most have been HUGE. And hefty. Surprsingly so considering that so much of the stuff for the film like the chambers, take-up reels, winding mechanisms and the like are just not necessary. And with electronics getting tinier and tinier I have frankly been surprised why everything needed to be so big.

The fact that the M8 was only marginally larger than its film predecessor was all the more striking to me. And part of the appeal.

Peter
 

barjohn

New member
I too like the feel of metal but there is a middle ground that we can see in the older Nikon AF-D primes that are plastic (with some metal) but have a very good feel compared to the more current all plastic VR versions. On the other hand, if weight is a factor, every ounce you eliminate is one less ounce to lug around. Even a tiny camera is not very pocketable if it weighs so much that the material in you shirt or pants pocket is sagging under the load. Also, speaking of aesthetics, how well do the finishes hold up over time? We have plenty of examples of used lenses that look terribly beat-up and that diminishes their value, even if they work fine.

I know that in general the Leica lenses are well made though how well they hold up in different weather and climate conditions is questionable in my mind. How many of us would want to subject a $6K lens to rough climate conditions and hope the lens survived unscathed? I would rather have a good $200 lens and if it doesn't survive, well I can replace it.
 

nostatic

New member
On the other hand, if weight is a factor, every ounce you eliminate is one less ounce to lug around. Even a tiny camera is not very pocketable if it weighs so much that the material in you shirt or pants pocket is sagging under the load.
21/3.2
140g, 1" long



40/2.8
90g, 0.6" long


43/1.9
155g, 1.1" long
 

peterb

Member
John,

The thing I can't fathom is why a 35mm f2.0 lens from Leitz goes for $2795 (B&H prices out of NYC) while a similar 35mm f2.0 from Zeiss for the M mount goes for $877. According to reviewers like Sean Reid both lenses are superbly built and unless you're really pixel peeping the Zeiss may outperform the Leitz. Other than a warranty for the butter-fingered, what the hell do you get for that extra $1918?

And weight wise, the 14-45mm kit lens is around .43 lb.

Leitz lenses generally weigh in around a half pound to a lb-and-a-half (for some of the super optics that suck in every photon of light technically possible for the sensor).

Zeiss generally fares better weighing in between under half a pound to a full pound (for their 85mm f2.0 which would be a 170mm f2.0 equiv.).

And when you consider the super duper Zuiko 4/3 zooms you're talking serious lb-age here (and that's not including the 4/3/s adapter!).

Overall, most aren't too bad. But when you want better light gathering capability (which is always helpful to avoid using the higher ISO's in order to keep the noise down) some of these glass porkers could use the lens equivalent of Jenny Craig.

That said, while the substantial-ness of materials used in some newer Nikons and Canons is quite good in terms of their ability to weather the wear and tear of things remember, these are autofocus lenses not manual focus like the M lenses. And I wonder how much of the decision was for using the lighter materials was to ease the wear and tear on the ultrasonic focusing mechanisms vs what the user needs since they must have reasoned that even though manual focusing would be possible, for 99% of the time users of these cameras are typically in autofocus mode. Which explains the emphasis on making sure the tactile user experience using the zoom ring not be compromised.

Interestingly, when Zeiss makes manual lenses for M cameras they go all out and make them the traditional way out of metal and well greased for the long haul under many conditions. But when they make the autofocus lenses for Sony, they use all plastic like Nikon and Canon do (who, by the way, go metal in their more powerful zoom telephoto optics). And again I wonder how much the decision is based on optimizing the weight for the sake of accuracy and low and wear and tear on the ultrasonic auto focus motors over an option for manual focus.

The Lumix kit lens is a refreshing exception to the loosy goosy feel I'd experienced manually focusing some of these later Nikon optics that use the lower weight plastics over metal. And I wonder if some middle ground might be achieved as you suggested.

Peter
 

monza

Active member
I was looking at those Pentax lenses a few days ago, too bad the first two don't have aperture rings...
 

peterb

Member
Nostatic (great name by the way),

I agree. The less you lug the better. But considering what boulders DSLR's have become, even with the all metal lenses of the likes of Zeiss and Leitz with a G1 it's a vast improvement in terms of what you have to lug around vs what I've seen some folks lumbering around with.

Peter
 
Top