You know the saying: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck. Well, Panasonic’s DMC-G1 looks like a digital SLR, has interchangeable lenses like a DSLR – but it isn’t a DLSR. No sir, the G1 ushers in a new generation of cameras designed to blast a hole right through the middle of …
"there’s also a lot to be said for sticking with tried and tested technology - that’s why computer manufacturers kept the typewriter's Qwerty keyboard."
I doubt that. It was nothing to do with sticking with it for technological reasons, and rather more to do with the fact the masses are already used to keys being in certain places.
The technology attached to the keys of your modern PC keyboard is - you'll be shocked to learn - quite different to what you'll find attached to the keys of an old typewriter.
To get a useful wide angle lens you're going to need something like a 12-24 as equivalent to a 35mm 24-48. Not cheap. If you want a fisheye, you're stuffed.
I looked at one when I recently bought a DSLR camera although it is a good idea, you forgot to mention there are currently only 2 lens available at launch and they are quite pricey. I felt it has potential to go the way of Betamax
The advantage of the camera I eventually got it takes generic lens.
You state that the sensor is smaller than that found on DSLRs. It may be a bit smaller than most, but it's exactly the same size as that found on Olympus's crackingly good recent DSLR models. The addition of the word "most" would resolve this issue.
Overpriced, but possibly the dawning of a new era.
#
Yes its odd that the shutter is normally open, as it is when you swap lenses. It must close just before an exposure, open for the exposure then close again, then re-open to allow the viewfinder to work. Go figure.
Rumour has it that Olympus have some very nice looking micro-four-thirds cameras ready for launch.
And I'm sure Leica and Zuiko will come up with some very nice and compact wide angle and telephoto lenses before long.
since it's not designed to be used with 35mm lenses. Indeed wide angle lenses should be easier to make since you don't need to use a retrofocus design to clear the mirror. Of course, since I rather like to use my 35mm lenses, I'm not a potential buyer and I suspect I'm not alone. The market effectively sidelined the four thirds format years ago, despite it being a nice idea in principle, and I can't see going to an electronic viewfinder changing that.
Oh, and to echo an earlier post, if those sample are representative I'll be staying with Pentax.
I am quite excited by the concept of Micro Four-Thirds, and would love to get rid of my huge DSLR and monster lens in favour of something as small as this. But I think they need to cut the apron strings and try something more revolutionary. I'll wait till the G2 comes along!
Many police think this is illegal! Such an act could have you fall downstairs on the way to the cells, or worse, as it is a digital camera - your entire IT equipment could be confiscated for years while they work out how to copy the hard disks.
if you need your IT equipment for business or employment, there risk that you will suffer bankruptcy!
If you need your IT equipment to file an accurate tax return, there is the risk that you might provide false information to the Inland Revenue!!
And finally, you may forget any passwords in the intervening years and then get years in the cells under RIP legislation!!!
!!!!
It's not worth it - much better to keep your head down and don't draw attention to yourself.
Or use a false ID when you take the photo - maybe of Jacqi Smith, or Jack Straw
Only slightly smaller than a DSLR -- so why bother? It looks huge with that lens attached. Saving a few cubic centimeters is not so compelling. Want small, good camera then buy a Lumix (I used to have a DMC-TZ3 and it was quite decent, with a 10x zoom).
Some people mentioned it uses only its own (two) lenses. Even worse. Buy a DSLR and it usually uses legacy (and cheap and good) lenses, even if with some obvious limitations.
It might be that I'm not seeing something here, but either you're after something cheap(ish) to carry everyday/ to parties/ family vacations -- of which there are many nowadays with great image quality (mine is a Canon SX100 IS) -- or you are taking pictures "seriously", in which case the proper (D)SLR is the way to go (Pentax K10D for me).
I concur about the sample images - they do seem very, very soft. Even my cheap 70-300 on my 300D does better than that with a low quality lens and a 6mp sensor.
Not sure what this camera is supposed to prove TBH - the sort of people who buy bridge cameras tend to do so specifically because they want something with more range of features than a compact without the bother of changing lenses, whereas those of us who go for SLRs tend to do so because we don't want the compromise of a bridge camera.
This seems to be an answer to a question no-one has asked, and not a very good one at that.
Softness samples:
http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/01/28/g1_28.jpg
http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/01/28/g1_6.jpg
I appreciate that the are full crops, but even then, that seems a bit iffy to me.
And for £500...um, I'd rather a 1000D methinks. It might be based on tech developed for film, but I can't see how this tech offers any advantages other than the live preview really.
I think you're being a bit harsh - this is a very good piece of kit indeed. When I was looking a camera for myself around christmas, I narrowed it down to this and the D90 ( I went for the Nikon in the end.) overpriced? very possibly, as Panasonic themselves launched it with £50 cashback straightaway, but as Jared points out, Panasonic are making (and have here IMO) incredible cameras on any terms. several review sites have said this has better performance than quite a few 'normal' slr's.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed the lack of sharpness. I found myself scrolling round a 1:1 magnified image trying to work out what the camera had focussed on!
Register
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 12Mp µ4/3s camera
You know the saying: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck. Well, Panasonic’s DMC-G1 looks like a digital SLR, has interchangeable lenses like a DSLR – but it isn’t a DLSR. No sir, the G1 ushers in a new generation of cameras designed to blast a hole right through the middle of …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Posted Friday 30th January 2009 13:41 GMT
Jared Earle
YOUR_CAPTION_HERE #
The G1 is probably not revolutionary enough. I suspect they're scared of people not buying something that doesn't look like a 'proper' camera.
Still, Panasonic are making incredible non-SLR cameras already. It pays not to ignore the Lumix range when choosing a new camera.
Oh, and great captions.
Posted Friday 30th January 2009 14:32 GMT
Flugal
Tried and tested #
"there’s also a lot to be said for sticking with tried and tested technology - that’s why computer manufacturers kept the typewriter's Qwerty keyboard."
I doubt that. It was nothing to do with sticking with it for technological reasons, and rather more to do with the fact the masses are already used to keys being in certain places.
The technology attached to the keys of your modern PC keyboard is - you'll be shocked to learn - quite different to what you'll find attached to the keys of an old typewriter.
Posted Friday 30th January 2009 15:32 GMT
jason eariss
No thanks #
If your samples are anything to go by, I think I'll stick with canon.
Posted Friday 30th January 2009 15:32 GMT
Anonymous Coward
Crop factor 2x = inconvenient #
To get a useful wide angle lens you're going to need something like a 12-24 as equivalent to a 35mm 24-48. Not cheap. If you want a fisheye, you're stuffed.
Oh, and £500? Way overpriced.
Posted Friday 30th January 2009 15:32 GMT
ewan
Exposed Sensor #
Surely the mechanical shutter is in front of the sensor, meaning the sensor isn't exposed to the elements?
Paris, because she wouldn't put up with a micro four thirds.
Posted Friday 30th January 2009 18:14 GMT
Anonymous Coward
Nice but... #
I looked at one when I recently bought a DSLR camera although it is a good idea, you forgot to mention there are currently only 2 lens available at launch and they are quite pricey. I felt it has potential to go the way of Betamax
The advantage of the camera I eventually got it takes generic lens.
Posted Friday 30th January 2009 18:14 GMT
David Gosnell
Picky point #
You state that the sensor is smaller than that found on DSLRs. It may be a bit smaller than most, but it's exactly the same size as that found on Olympus's crackingly good recent DSLR models. The addition of the word "most" would resolve this issue.
Posted Friday 30th January 2009 18:14 GMT
Alistair
Overpriced, but possibly the dawning of a new era. #
Yes its odd that the shutter is normally open, as it is when you swap lenses. It must close just before an exposure, open for the exposure then close again, then re-open to allow the viewfinder to work. Go figure.
Rumour has it that Olympus have some very nice looking micro-four-thirds cameras ready for launch.
And I'm sure Leica and Zuiko will come up with some very nice and compact wide angle and telephoto lenses before long.
Posted Friday 30th January 2009 18:14 GMT
Gary McCabe
@ Flugal #
Flugal,
this was George's point- use something familiar as you dont want to scare users off entirely.
Or didn't you get that?
Posted Friday 30th January 2009 18:14 GMT
Francis Boyle
@ Stu #
Type your comment here — plain text only, no HTML
Posted Friday 30th January 2009 18:14 GMT
Francis Boyle
There's no crop factor #
since it's not designed to be used with 35mm lenses. Indeed wide angle lenses should be easier to make since you don't need to use a retrofocus design to clear the mirror. Of course, since I rather like to use my 35mm lenses, I'm not a potential buyer and I suspect I'm not alone. The market effectively sidelined the four thirds format years ago, despite it being a nice idea in principle, and I can't see going to an electronic viewfinder changing that.
Oh, and to echo an earlier post, if those sample are representative I'll be staying with Pentax.
Posted Friday 30th January 2009 18:14 GMT
Don Thompson
Exposed sensor #
The mechanical shutter is indeed normally open - it needs to be for the live viewfinder images to work!
Posted Friday 30th January 2009 18:14 GMT
JB
Not quite there yet #
I am quite excited by the concept of Micro Four-Thirds, and would love to get rid of my huge DSLR and monster lens in favour of something as small as this. But I think they need to cut the apron strings and try something more revolutionary. I'll wait till the G2 comes along!
Posted Friday 30th January 2009 19:14 GMT
Anonymous Coward
foolish foolish foolish #
Foolish taking pictures of a police car!
Many police think this is illegal! Such an act could have you fall downstairs on the way to the cells, or worse, as it is a digital camera - your entire IT equipment could be confiscated for years while they work out how to copy the hard disks.
if you need your IT equipment for business or employment, there risk that you will suffer bankruptcy!
If you need your IT equipment to file an accurate tax return, there is the risk that you might provide false information to the Inland Revenue!!
And finally, you may forget any passwords in the intervening years and then get years in the cells under RIP legislation!!!
!!!!
It's not worth it - much better to keep your head down and don't draw attention to yourself.
Or use a false ID when you take the photo - maybe of Jacqi Smith, or Jack Straw
Posted Friday 30th January 2009 19:20 GMT
Anonymous Coward
I see you didn't take my advice #
You should have taken my advice!
You've gone and taken pictures of money! European money!!
You'll have the European Secret Police after you!!!
!!!!
Posted Saturday 31st January 2009 02:41 GMT
J
Hm... #
I still don't see the point of this camera.
Only slightly smaller than a DSLR -- so why bother? It looks huge with that lens attached. Saving a few cubic centimeters is not so compelling. Want small, good camera then buy a Lumix (I used to have a DMC-TZ3 and it was quite decent, with a 10x zoom).
Some people mentioned it uses only its own (two) lenses. Even worse. Buy a DSLR and it usually uses legacy (and cheap and good) lenses, even if with some obvious limitations.
It might be that I'm not seeing something here, but either you're after something cheap(ish) to carry everyday/ to parties/ family vacations -- of which there are many nowadays with great image quality (mine is a Canon SX100 IS) -- or you are taking pictures "seriously", in which case the proper (D)SLR is the way to go (Pentax K10D for me).
Otherwise, why bother?
Posted Saturday 31st January 2009 02:41 GMT
xjy
Revolutionary #
This is as revolutionary in its way as the Sigma/Foveon cameras.
And the potential is fantastic. Given a couple of years design work and miniaturization (of price as well as size), this will be the one to beat.
Now if Panasonic and Sigma could work together to create a G-series/Foveon model - we'd be drowning in drool...
(Paris cos she's one to beat...)
Posted Sunday 1st February 2009 00:20 GMT
Steven Raith
@ jason eariss #
I concur about the sample images - they do seem very, very soft. Even my cheap 70-300 on my 300D does better than that with a low quality lens and a 6mp sensor.
Not sure what this camera is supposed to prove TBH - the sort of people who buy bridge cameras tend to do so specifically because they want something with more range of features than a compact without the bother of changing lenses, whereas those of us who go for SLRs tend to do so because we don't want the compromise of a bridge camera.
This seems to be an answer to a question no-one has asked, and not a very good one at that.
Softness samples:
http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/01/28/g1_28.jpg
http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/01/28/g1_6.jpg
I appreciate that the are full crops, but even then, that seems a bit iffy to me.
And for £500...um, I'd rather a 1000D methinks. It might be based on tech developed for film, but I can't see how this tech offers any advantages other than the live preview really.
Steven R
Posted Sunday 1st February 2009 20:33 GMT
thomas newton
only 75%? #
I think you're being a bit harsh - this is a very good piece of kit indeed. When I was looking a camera for myself around christmas, I narrowed it down to this and the D90 ( I went for the Nikon in the end.) overpriced? very possibly, as Panasonic themselves launched it with £50 cashback straightaway, but as Jared points out, Panasonic are making (and have here IMO) incredible cameras on any terms. several review sites have said this has better performance than quite a few 'normal' slr's.
but why have you taken so long to review it?
Posted Sunday 1st February 2009 20:33 GMT
Paul
soft focus? #
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed the lack of sharpness. I found myself scrolling round a 1:1 magnified image trying to work out what the camera had focussed on!
This topic is closed for new posts.