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!

Hey G1 fans.

peterb

Member
Sean Reid has just uploaded the first part of his two part review of the G1. Really good read. And a lot to feel good about with your discovery of what I think is a truly remarkable development (if you'll excuse the pun) in digital photography.

The first part is a good analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the G1 concept (and of course its inevitable comparison to the M-youknowwhat).

The second part plans to delve into the quality of the images themselves. (Which I don't think there will be too many surprises if the images I've seen on this site are any indication. ;) )

If you haven't subscribed to his site, very worth it. He's very thoughtful, very thorough and very fair. (And no I'm not a paid stooge, spammer or one of his long lost relatives.)

Peter
 
Last edited:

Brian Mosley

New member
Hi Peter,

yes, looking forward to reading this article later today - it's sad that we have to put disclaimers on honest recommendations today... I am not a communist, I have never met a communist and none of my friends are gay - oh, and I have no financial connection with Sean other than paying my annual subscription to his excellent review site :D

Kind Regards

Brian
 

barjohn

New member
I agree. A good and fair read with only a few errors that I mentioned and one that I missed but someone else caught. Sean is a very good photographer, in my opinion and thus I place high value in his judgements. Having said that I don't always fully agree with him, mainly because of his admitted bias toward a RF type of viewing. While I like an RF type of viewing it isn't the be all and end all to me that it is to him.
 

Martin S

New member
I reviewed Sean's review/analysis and while I think it fairly portrays the G1's strengths, and weaknesses, he seems to add a lot of his personal positive bias towards DRF's.

I think that his comments on using RF lenses on the G1 are helpful, and accurately portray the additional steps in their use. Probably, their best use would be for stationary/slow moving images unless zone focussing, or large depth of field shooting works for the subject.

I usually find his reviews thoughtful, and technically complete, but his description of an imaginary DRF (OV-1) to be a little off the purpose of the review. He goes into significant detail about this imaginary camera, which I think does little to add to his otherwise excellent review.

Just my opinion.

Martin
 

Terry

New member
Maritn

In practice - which admittedly isn't a lot, I don't find focusing the DRF lenses to take that long. In low light with my M8 I'm kinda (like very) slow getting focus on a fast lens wide open.

Even on the D700 and Voigtlander lens that has focus confirm I'm not that fast.

Agree with your synopsis.
 

Martin S

New member
Thanks TEBnewyork

I felt a little odd with my comments on the OV-1 (imaginary camera) since I usually find Sean's review's very well done with a great degree of objectivity.

I m looking forward to receiving John Milich's GM adapter to see for myself how difficult or easy using some of my vintage Leica lenses on the G1.

I really liked ur images of the Bay Bridge using the 15mm, and 75mm CV lenses. Makes me think about purchasing the 75 mm???

Any problems with lack of stabilization at 150 mm FOV?????

Martin
 

monza

Active member
I think that his comments on using RF lenses on the G1 are helpful, and accurately portray the additional steps in their use. Probably, their best use would be for stationary/slow moving images unless zone focussing, or large depth of field shooting works for the subject.
I'm a former subscriber. Is his take that the G1 with RF lenses is as least as good as any rangefinder (as in my experience, an RF is also best used in the situations described above.)

Was there anything about using adapted SLR lenses?

I subscribed when I was contemplating an M8, found the information helpful but not moreso than other info freely available. I thought it curious that Sean is so steadfastly against ('cannot recommend') manual coding of lenses. Also was frustrated by the sloooow flash interface.
 

Terry

New member
Thanks TEBnewyork

I felt a little odd with my comments on the OV-1 (imaginary camera) since I usually find Sean's review's very well done with a great degree of objectivity.

I m looking forward to receiving John Milich's GM adapter to see for myself how difficult or easy using some of my vintage Leica lenses on the G1.

I really liked ur images of the Bay Bridge using the 15mm, and 75mm CV lenses. Makes me think about purchasing the 75 mm???

Any problems with lack of stabilization at 150 mm FOV?????

Martin
PM me before you go out and buy a 75. I have both the CV75 and a 75 cron and would potentially sell the CV. The CV lens renders really beautifully wide open...these are from my M8

http://tbanet.zenfolio.com/p1032449580/

Terry
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
I am a former subscriber too, and initially paid up when contemplating lenses for the M8. I think his reviews are very pertinent and an excellent resource to add to the spectrum of opinion available while in the midst of an equipment purchase decision.

But I won't subscribe again and it may sound silly, but I simply can't stand the interface. It is slow beyond reason and very difficult to view test samples one against the other since many times only one sample fits in the screen. If there was an option to download a review as a PDF, I'd sign up again.

I know, not rational, but hey, user experience is a factor and the fact that the interface still remains the same seems to underscore an impression I have of Sean that it's either "my way or the highway". YMMV as usual.
 

barjohn

New member
I am a repeat subscriber because I like what I see in his photography and his articles are well written and thought out. I even like the part about the imaginary OV1 because this is how you spur a manufacturer to build something different.

However, I too hate his user interface. It is way too slow and cumbersome and the one thing Sean really should look to change. There are many other ways to present the information that would create a much more pleasant user experience. If it's done to protect content it is a waste as any competent technical person can extract the content. Most of us don't in respect for his copyright.
 

monza

Active member
But I won't subscribe again and it may sound silly, but I simply can't stand the interface. It is slow beyond reason and very difficult to view test samples one against the other since many times only one sample fits in the screen.
Not silly at all. :) Same experience here. Too frustrating, my day is too busy to waste time on scrolling, and like you say, difficult to have side by side comparisons. I refuse to scroll thru at turtle speed taking screen shots to make my own side by sides. Far too time consuming.

I'd most likely sign up again, except for the interface. As John says, there are other ways. I have subscribed to another site for 4-5 years (not photography related) that has copyrighted info, and has none of these problems. A browser is far more efficient displaying text and jpegs than flash.
 

woodyspedden

New member
Make sure you are using the up and down arrows to scroll as opposed to the scroll bar in the on screen window. Scrolling is way faster and painless as compared to using the mouse, cursor and scroll arrows.

Woody
 

barjohn

New member
Using a Mac I tend to have my hand on the mouse and use the scroll ball so I never think to use the arrow keys on the keyboard. :)
 

Chris C

Member
..... I thought it curious that Sean is so steadfastly against ('cannot recommend') manual coding of lenses......
I think you have misinterpreted 'cannot recommend'.

I'd have thought that Sean's campaigning, reviews, and extensive contributions to discussions [particularly on LUF] on using various 'M' and LTM lenses on the M8 demonstrate emphatically his position in favour of coding lenses when appropriate.

I read 'cannot recommend' as will not, a legal nicety which protects him from possible and no doubt unwelcome litigation by people who code lenses, run into problems, and seek compensation from Sean.

Whilst Sean cannot recommend, the signposts in his writing clearly shows where coding is advisable.

I too find the slowness of the sight a bit irritating, particularly when I return to an article and want to scan it for specific information. Other than that, I'm a fan, particularly of Sean's reviewing style which I find refreshingly trustworthy.

............... Chris
 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
We've had a fairly long thread now discussing an article that can't be read without a paid subscription -- "second-party spam," in effect. I'm not sure we should be doing that.

Admitted bias: I'm another former subscriber; I dropped out because the site just didn't have much utility for me. Sean seems like a good guy, and I suppose his pedantic amateur-author style may strike non-writers as learned... but after a while I decided that his opinions weren't really any more valuable than a lot of other opinions available on the Web for free. I realize many people find them insightful and useful, so de gustibus non disputadem (Latin for "Your mileage may vary") and all that. But this still smells a little like plugola to me.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I think several folks have raised good points.

IMO the number of "past" subscribers (as opposed to current subscribers) indicates to me the basic problem with Sean's paid subscription site: you cannot tell if you are going to appreciate the content until *after* you pay. So here, any potential new subscriber has only a few choices, pay and see or rely on another's recommendation. This is where I see value in threads like this as discussing the merits or flaws folks see can be beneficial to others trying to decide whether to pony up for the subscription...

Personally, I don't subscribe to Sean's site because as has been repeated by several past subscribers, most of the data it contains can be had for free from several sources -- like right here on GetDPI :)D). Moreover, one tends to get a more balanced view when more than one opinion is voiced, and this doesn't happen on Sean's site...

Where I think paid sites work, is where hard, verifiable, technical data is made available and/or where the reviewer has special expertise in the area being discussed. For example, take a site like Diglloyd's (http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog.html): he has significant computer programming and testing expertise and applies this to is digital imaging equipment reviews -- and most of all, he has several helpful "free" articles available; if you like what you see in the free areas, then it's a pretty good bet you'll like the information in the paid section.

On Sean's site, I don't recall much in the way of free meat. (Is there any at all now? Been over a year since I looked...) That said, the direct comparisons he's made using the same setting for different lenses or cameras might be helpful in deciding which version one wants to purchase. Then again, even after reading the paid review, an informed consumer will usually turn to a larger group for verification that a given product is as advertised, so now we're back to the free forum concept...

One other huge caveat to any review is the buyer needs to first have confidence in the veracity of the reviewer, and did they use appropriate or off-the-shelf review samples... Here, it is known in all industries that often a manufacturer-supplied review sample has been triple-checked and tweaked at the factory for optimal performance -- let's face it, no manufacturer wants to send a dog review sample out. But as buyers, we may just end up with one or worse, the review sample may have been a "superior" copy and thus "normal" may be significantly sub-par.

My .02 only -- and why the information in GetDPI forums will remain "free,"
 

peterb

Member
Wow! I didn't mean to cause such a ruckus by saying there was a rather favorable review of a camera we've all come to love for the possibilities it presents (namely using some incredible optics on the thing).

So I apologize for sounding like I was making a plug for Sean's website. I've been a subscriber it's true and yes I've found the interface a little difficult at times (I think it's some weird Java script) but the content I've found quite good. Before the G1 I was contemplating a number of cameras and optics. And I pored over Sean's writings to help me come to a place where I'd want to be. As I'd mentioned on some of these posts I'd had Contax and then Leitz and then bagged it all for digital. First I had a Leitz' Digilux 2, then a Ricoh GR-D (which got fried by the elements on a heli-hiking trip to British Columbia) and most recently a Panasonic Lumix LX1.

I wanted to get something better. His reviews on various Zeiss third party lenses (which I missed when I gave up the Contax) made me consider two other makes whose cameras would readily take them: the Nikon D700, D300, D90 and the Pentax K20D (based on his very positive review of the K10D). I also looked into the new Sonys with their capability of using some excellent Zeiss AF lenses.

For me on the issue of photographic hardware in the digital age has been the sensors and their filters. How many pixels before noise gets out of hand? Is an optic being compromised by the sensor's anti-aliasing filter? Clearly nothing will ever come close to nothing coming between a lens and bare naked film. So that said, find a camera candidate with the least impairment on the sensor side that allows the best possible optics available.

There was one other issue of the hardware. Their physical size. For some reason DSLR's and their lenses are like rocks to me. While liked what I read in Sean's reviews of the D700 I was stopped cold when I actually hoisted one up. Man that sucker is big. No Contax 139 with its built in motor drive. The same held for the D300. The D90 and Pentax (which I only held the previous K10D at B&H in NY a few years back) were just plain chunky. The Sony A900 was waaaay too big for me. And the A700 I felt was just another clubby DSLR.

I LOVED the idea that the M8 was a just a tad thicker than the traditional film M's. But the price was an issue. But I saw somewhere on the web a photo of the M8 next to this new kid, a weird little camera from Panasonic called the G1 that again was about the same thickness and therefore implying a very holdable little camera that wouldn't feel liek a rock. And then I read how companies were making adapters for this thing. Adapters that would allow one to mount not just big SLR optics but the petite, legendary optics for the likes of M, Zeiss Ikon, Kycocera Contax (which ironically was a rangefinder that was called the G1!), Voigtlander which meant a digital camera with quality interchangeable lenses thus keeping the entire package small, manageable, unobtrusive and, best of all, fun.

I also read how polarizing it was. There were clearly some fans. But many detractors (mostly over the dearth of optics for an $800 camera and some sniffing about it having an EVF no matter how good its quality which I found superb after the Digilux 2 experience). After considering everything I was sold on the G1. And, like many on this forum, am one happy camper as a result of that decision.

Sean's reviews merely helped me along that process.

As far as promoting anything, I suggested the same (as well as BarJohn here) with an analysis of what Pop Photo had said, particularly when with a little cross referencing of individual measurements they'd made with every other top flight digital today one could see that under certain conditions it appeared the little camera that could, the G1, not only held its own on the noise front it surpassed everyone in the color accuracy front and was bested by only two or three in the sharpness/resolution front (and for anyone who wanted to attach the best glass available that was a most exciting development).

All I was doing was just calling attention to another fine review. No plugs. No payola. No kidding.

Peter
 
Last edited:

Brian Mosley

New member
Peter - no need to explain, we apppreciate the pointer and it's a thought provoking review. I've never used a rangefinder and find the perspective offered refreshing... I was surprised that the ZD 11-22mm f2.8-3.5 wasn't mentioned as a moderately fast wide angle option. Obviously, an 11mm f2 pancake native m4/3rds prime would be fantastic, but this lens is certainly worth consideration in the meantime.

Kind Regards

Brian
 

jklotz

New member
We should rename this thread "Reid Bashing" :D

I re-upped my subscription recently. The way I see it, once I learned his methodology and point of view, I could pretty much ascertain what I needed from the reviews. I think it's worth it. I mean, what's $34 for some solid info when you are trying to decide between $3K Leica lens or a $300 CV?

Anyway, I can understand why he charges for it. Think how much time would be involved to secure the gear, test it like he does with the focus bracketing, etc, write the articles, add the test photos, post online, pay for the server space and bandwidth, etc. It's not a cheap venture from a money or time standpoint.

I do agree, however that the interface could use some help. And the fictitious camera, well, maybe that was a little "out there", but who am I to say? Still doesn't take away the info that I find valuable. :D
 

monza

Active member
I didn't see the thread as Reid bashing, just perhaps balance. On other forums, it appears there is an unwritten rule not to post any alternative thoughts about Reid Reviews.

There are other ways to provide the service, one of which is to use an advertising model instead of a subscription model.
 
Top