Panasonic G1 - some AF numbers
Mark Thomas
some numbers from a production model.
The G1's AF lag is around 0.35-0.39s.
To put that into perspective, Canon 40D is ~0.13s, Sony A200 ~0.19s,
Nikon D60 ~0.26s, Olympus E420 ~0.14s...
Not quite up to dslr speed, but not too shabby. Compared to p&s
cameras, the Oly SP550 is 1.1-1.5s, Pan FZ18 ~0.5s, Canon G9 ~0.6s.
Be interesting to see how the rest of this camera pans out. I'm looking
forward to having a good hard look at that EVF...
Steve
It does look interesting. But $800??? I would think that by removing
the mirror box, prism, etc., which simplifies assembly and by going to
a smaller sensor, they could save some cost over over something like a
D60 with a similar lens. But it's like $200 more! Oh well.
And sure, it's smaller. But only slightly. It not small enough to
replace a pocket P&S so I'm not sure the slightly smaller size and
weight is worth the extra cost. We're talking about 124x84x45 vs
126x94x64 mm in size for the body. And weight is 380g vs 495g for the
body alone. 630g for the G1 with lens and battery vs. about 730g for
the D60 with an equivalent lens and battery. So even though it's
smaller, not enough so to make much difference in terms of
portability.
It'll be really interesting to see whether the new "gee whiz" nifty
factor of the camera is enough for it to compete. I'd wait a bit
since I suspect you'll see that high price drop quickly.
Mark Thomas
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:14:29 +1000, Mark Thomas
> <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>
>> For those watching this rather interesting camera, Imaging Resource has
>> some numbers from a production model.
>>
>> The G1's AF lag is around 0.35-0.39s.
>>
>> To put that into perspective, Canon 40D is ~0.13s, Sony A200 ~0.19s,
>> Nikon D60 ~0.26s, Olympus E420 ~0.14s...
>>
>> Not quite up to dslr speed, but not too shabby. Compared to p&s
>> cameras, the Oly SP550 is 1.1-1.5s, Pan FZ18 ~0.5s, Canon G9 ~0.6s.
>>
>> Be interesting to see how the rest of this camera pans out. I'm looking
>> forward to having a good hard look at that EVF...
>
> It does look interesting. But $800??? I would think that by removing
> the mirror box, prism, etc., which simplifies assembly and by going to
> a smaller sensor, they could save some cost over over something like a
> D60 with a similar lens. But it's like $200 more! Oh well.
I wonder how much of that is actual cost recovery, and how much is a
pretty accurate guess on what type of buyer they will attract and what
the market will stand...
> And sure, it's smaller. But only slightly. It not small enough to
> replace a pocket P&S so I'm not sure the slightly smaller size and
> weight is worth the extra cost. We're talking about 124x84x45 vs
> 126x94x64 mm in size for the body. And weight is 380g vs 495g for the
> body alone. 630g for the G1 with lens and battery vs. about 730g for
> the D60 with an equivalent lens and battery. So even though it's
> smaller, not enough so to make much difference in terms of
> portability.
I sort of agree, but can't help thinking that this *could* be a very
interesting format if/as it develops. We all recognise that the high
iso performance of 4/3 will always be less than larger sensors, but the
key is that the noise performance of the later 4/3 sensors is actually
not that bad, and it is *significantly better* than high end p&s.
The other major limiting factors for the p&s are:
- lens range/flexibility. The G1 addresses that, even if there are some
limitations on the current choices. *If* the format takes off, there
will be few limitations in the future as Tamron/Sigma/etc jump on board.
- viewfinder quality/ability to manual focus. The reports on the G1
viewfinder are fairly promising, but I'll take a wild guess that we are
still one generation (at least) away from an evf that truly competes
with a good ovf.
- AF speed. It seems the G1 has respectable performance there, although
again I'd like to see what the next round brings.
So, to me, it appears as if the G1 is (almost) the first true 'bridge'
camera. I'll wait for the second or third, I think..
> It'll be really interesting to see whether the new "gee whiz" nifty
> factor of the camera is enough for it to compete. I'd wait a bit
> since I suspect you'll see that high price drop quickly.
I have the feeling it will leap off the shelves, frankly. There have
been very few truly innovative camera formats of late, and this just
might be 'the one'. Of course the price will drop, and there will
probably be some issues with the first few runs of the camera that will
see its used value drop dramatically also. It's all good, and I wish
Panasonic and Olympus well in this new venture... Diversity rules!
Steve
>The other major limiting factors for the p&s are:
>- lens range/flexibility. The G1 addresses that, even if there are some
>limitations on the current choices. *If* the format takes off, there
>will be few limitations in the future as Tamron/Sigma/etc jump on board.
>- viewfinder quality/ability to manual focus. The reports on the G1
>viewfinder are fairly promising, but I'll take a wild guess that we are
>still one generation (at least) away from an evf that truly competes
>with a good ovf.
>- AF speed. It seems the G1 has respectable performance there, although
>again I'd like to see what the next round brings.
>
>So, to me, it appears as if the G1 is (almost) the first true 'bridge'
>camera. I'll wait for the second or third, I think..
I think they're going to have to do a little better though, at least
for that price and for what the competition, such as a cheap low-end
DSLR like a D60 brings to the table for $200 less. Not even counting
the lens choices available since this G1 is something fairly new
compared to the Nikon F mount, a few of the specs even in addition to
what you pointed out above (noise, Autofocus, EVF vs OVF for the G1
vs. the D60) are in need of improving if it wants to compete at that
price point:
- Flash sync speed of only 1/160 (G1) compared to 1/200 (D60)
- Flash guide number of 10.5 vs. 12 at ISO 100.
There's other things also, like the CLS system that the D60 supports
with the built in flash as a controller. And why is the Bulb shutter
limited to 8 minutes with the G1? I know that's tiny and nit-picky
and probably will never come up as a limitation in the real world, but
it doesn't make sense. Maybe they'll change that with a future
firmware release.
Yes, those things are tiny nit-picks and you can find things about the
G1 that are a bit better than a D60 also.
But I think a revolutionary new system has to be more than just tiny
nit-picks better than the establishment for it to take hold. This one
is not, and the price is higher.
>> It'll be really interesting to see whether the new "gee whiz" nifty
>> factor of the camera is enough for it to compete. I'd wait a bit
>> since I suspect you'll see that high price drop quickly.
>
>I have the feeling it will leap off the shelves, frankly. There have
>been very few truly innovative camera formats of late, and this just
>might be 'the one'. Of course the price will drop, and there will
>probably be some issues with the first few runs of the camera that will
>see its used value drop dramatically also. It's all good, and I wish
>Panasonic and Olympus well in this new venture... Diversity rules!
So do I. Hopefully you're right and this is just the first in a
series and the next few offerings will provide something
revolutionarily better than the cheap DSLRs of today.
It does look interesting as a replacement for a bridge camera. But
even there, the price is over twice as much as a lot of decent bridge
cameras. And I'm not sure you're getting all that much more for that
much more money. Maybe the G2 will be different, or a half price G1.
Steve
Dale Donner
They should have two lists of tests. In daylight and then in low-light
situations where contrast-detection cameras will always win.
Though I fail to understand how autofocus speed is ever a selling point to
someone that knows what they are doing. I never look at nor consider the specs
on autofocus in any camera that I buy, that feature is always last on my list.
Autofocus is insignificant, like buying a camera based on the kind of neckstrap
that comes with it. I'll occasionally use it to get the lens quickly into the
range needed then I take over from there, as any decent photographer should.
I can only guess that for the snapshooter it's very important. Lots of
snapshooters that hope their purchase will turn them into a professional. What a
shame that they are the ones defining the market and designing the next cameras
with their purchases. The real professionals then have to put up with the
end-result of their majority-rules inexperience and no-talent choices in life.
There's something consummately wrong in that mechanism.
SMS
> It does look interesting. But $800??? I would think that by removing
> the mirror box, prism, etc., which simplifies assembly and by going to
> a smaller sensor, they could save some cost over over something like a
> D60 with a similar lens. But it's like $200 more! Oh well.
They don't price it based on how much it costs them to build, they price
it based on how much they think the market will pay.
Maybe they think they have the digital equivalent of a Minox, LOL. It's
the smallest interchangeable lens, relatively large sensor, P&S. Maybe
the market for it is the people that are currently buying tele and
wide-angle adapters for their P&S cameras, and that don't like the
results, but that don't want an SLR because they think it's too complicated.
> And sure, it's smaller. But only slightly. It not small enough to
> replace a pocket P&S so I'm not sure the slightly smaller size and
> weight is worth the extra cost. We're talking about 124x84x45 vs
> 126x94x64 mm in size for the body. And weight is 380g vs 495g for the
> body alone. 630g for the G1 with lens and battery vs. about 730g for
> the D60 with an equivalent lens and battery. So even though it's
> smaller, not enough so to make much difference in terms of
> portability.
This is true. But there's another disadvantage as well. Until micro 4:3
lenses become more available, you'll have to use regular 4:3 lenses with
an adapter. Now you've _really_ lost any size and weight advantage.
> It'll be really interesting to see whether the new "gee whiz" nifty
> factor of the camera is enough for it to compete. I'd wait a bit
> since I suspect you'll see that high price drop quickly.
I suspect it'll be like a Sigma D-SLR. A few people will buy it at the
introductory price, then the price will drop like a rock as Micro 4:3 fails.
If I had $800 to spend on a P&S I'd probably get the Canon SX1 and at
least get that wide-range, but likely mediocre, zoom lens included.
Rich
wrote:
As for image quality at high ISO (lets face it, low ISO images from
all DSLRs look good) I'd rate them:
1. Nikon D90 (provided sharpening is applied to camera output)
2. Olympus E-3
2b. Panasonic G1
3. Olympus E-520.
I like the fact Panasonic hasn't gone hog-wild with in-camera (no
choice) noise removal.
tn...@mucks.net
>I can only guess that for the snapshooter it's very important. Lots of
>snapshooters that hope their purchase will turn them into a professional. What a
>shame that they are the ones defining the market and designing the next cameras
>with their purchases. The real professionals then have to put up with the
>end-result of their majority-rules inexperience and no-talent choices in life.
>There's something consummately wrong in that mechanism.
I agree that there is something wrong here. It however is not
what you speak of. It is elitism. The elitism that believes you should
dictate what products or features should come to market.
Raytheon
"Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote in message
news:gfggka$3om$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Really promising! I didn't think Panny would be that good that fast. If the
EVF is good, this may finally signal the end of the mirror box.
Mark Thomas
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCG1/DMCG1A.HTM
Gets a pretty good wrap..
I'll bet dpreview will be a little annoyed they were beaten, and will be
not far behind.
dj_nme
> Full review now up:
>
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCG1/DMCG1A.HTM
>
> Gets a pretty good wrap..
>
> I'll bet dpreview will be a little annoyed they were beaten, and will be
> not far behind.
The Panasonic DMC-G1 isn't a DSLR camera nor is it a Canon camera, so
I'm not so sure that depreview.com will be rushing to do a full review
any time soon.
Steve
>Full review now up:
>
>http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCG1/DMCG1A.HTM
>
>Gets a pretty good wrap..
Not bad, but still a few problems. Most comparisions to it are
similar to existing cameras so I concentrate on things that are
different, like sensor size, EVF vs. OVF, etc.
Obviously, the high ISO performance wasn't as good as the Rebel XSi.
That's to be expected due to the smaller sensor and higher pixel
density. Is a slightly smaller body/lens worth that when it's not
really smaller enough to change it's portability? Personally I don't
think so. But some might.
I'm kind of dissapointed with the EVF. It's only 800x600 resolution.
I'd want to see "high def" resolution 1920x1080, or at that 4:3 aspect
ratio maybe double it to 1600x1200 before it could come close to
matching the detail you might see in an OVF.
Also, from the review:
"Another difference between the EVF and the LCD is the relative
contrast ratio. When looking through the EVF at a scene with a high
contrast ratio, detail in shadow areas falls off abruptly into
relative blackness, while the same shadow scene on the LCD still holds
detail. It's just a difference in the amount of contrast the LCOS chip
inside is able to display compared to the LCD."
Is that going to lead people to use the LCD and have to hold the
camera out at arm's length? Probably not. The EVF may be good enough
for framing, but I'd like to see something at least approaching a good
OVF if this really is the wave of the future.
Also, the reviewer says that there's a noticable time lag between real
time and what you see in the EVF. To me, that's unacceptable and
absolutely must be improved before I'll use an EVF. That just adds to
the already slower shutter lag from a DSLR.
And no live view when shooting in continious mode, only the captured
shots at the frame rate? Seems like that would make tracking a fast
subject (just when you'd want to use continuous shooting) very
difficult.
If this camera has the best EVF that's available (which it seems to),
then EVF's still have a way to go.
Also, the screen blanks out before taking an exposure so the shutter
can close and then re-open during exposure. That doesn't solve the
problem of the short screen blank on a DSLR to move the mirror out of
the way. I would hope that new technology can solve old problems but
this one hasn't.
So the main conclusions I get from reading that review is that in most
respects, it's not all that much different than something like the
Rebel XSi. It's main benefit is that it's a bit smaller but not
enough so to make a major difference in portability. But it has
several detrements such as noticeably lower image quality at high ISO,
slower AF, and a good EVF but not nearly up to OVF standards in terms
of image quality and ability to track a moving subject.
I seriously hope their next effort is better. This one could be fun
for early adopters and techogeeks. But for photographers I don't
think it's ready for prime time.
Steve
SMS
<snip>
> Also, from the review:
> "Another difference between the EVF and the LCD is the relative
> contrast ratio. When looking through the EVF at a scene with a high
> contrast ratio, detail in shadow areas falls off abruptly into
> relative blackness, while the same shadow scene on the LCD still holds
> detail. It's just a difference in the amount of contrast the LCOS chip
> inside is able to display compared to the LCD.
Yes, you're faced with the choice of holding the camera wrong and using
the LCD (if it's not washed out by sunlight) or using the crappy EVF.
You can tell that their target market isn't anyone that's ever used an
SLR optical viewfinder!
> Is that going to lead people to use the LCD and have to hold the
> camera out at arm's length? Probably not. The EVF may be good enough
> for framing, but I'd like to see something at least approaching a good
> OVF if this really is the wave of the future.
Won't happen. Too expensive to duplicate the functionality of an optical
viewfinder with a faster and higher resolution EVF.
> Also, the reviewer says that there's a noticable time lag between real
> time and what you see in the EVF. To me, that's unacceptable and
> absolutely must be improved before I'll use an EVF. That just adds to
> the already slower shutter lag from a DSLR.
Optical viewfinders will always be better, but this is a glorified P&S
camera. It would have been too expensive to include an accurate optical
viewfinder, though considering the price, they could have afforded it!
> So the main conclusions I get from reading that review is that in most
> respects, it's not all that much different than something like the
> Rebel XSi.
In reality it's quite different. With the XSi you get an optical
viewfinder, much faster AF, a much better selection of lenses, the list
goes on and on.
> I seriously hope their next effort is better. This one could be fun
> for early adopters and techogeeks. But for photographers I don't
> think it's ready for prime time.
Early adopters moved on to D-SLRs years ago. Technogeeks buy products
that at least have the potential to become cult products.
The G1 could succeed, but they'll have to price it at around $300.
SMS
> The Panasonic DMC-G1 isn't a DSLR camera nor is it a Canon camera, so
> I'm not so sure that depreview.com will be rushing to do a full review
> any time soon.
In the last 12 months, dpreview has reviewed the following brands:
Ricoh: 1
Sigma: 1
Panasonic: 2
Pentax: 2
Fuji: 3
Olympus: 5
Nikon: 6
Sony: 6
Canon: 8
Since Canon is by far the largest manufacturer of digital cameras, they
actually should have 10 or 11 Canon reviews in order to be fair. Based
on Panasonic's market share, they've been reviewing too many Panasonic
models. Yet dpreview has a preview of the G1, which means a full review
is coming.
They've even reviewed cameras like the Sigma DP1 so they don't just
review cameras from large manufacturers. The DP1 earned their lowest
rating of "above average,"
They do seem to be D-SLR heavy in their recent reviews, but remember
that D-SLRs are the fastest growing segment of the digital camera
market, while P&S models have peaked in terms of features and quality,
and now are actually going the other way, as manufacturers rush to
cost-reduce their P&S models.
Harvey-D
>market, while P&S models have peaked in terms of features and quality,
>and now are actually going the other way, as manufacturers rush to
>cost-reduce their P&S models.
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer
newsgroup-troll and a fool.
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. When you buy a DSLR you are
investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external
flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The
outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit in one roomy
pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy
backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass over the
frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units, is that the
light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed
used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the
flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash
is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK
capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the
lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is
1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a
second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also
don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may
be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can
compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" Camera
company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will
make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to
begin with. The irony is that by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
dj_nme
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:38:50 +1000, Mark Thomas
> <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>
>> Full review now up:
>>
>> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCG1/DMCG1A.HTM
>>
>> Gets a pretty good wrap..
>
> Not bad, but still a few problems. Most comparisions to it are
> similar to existing cameras so I concentrate on things that are
> different, like sensor size, EVF vs. OVF, etc.
>
> Obviously, the high ISO performance wasn't as good as the Rebel XSi.
> That's to be expected due to the smaller sensor and higher pixel
> density. Is a slightly smaller body/lens worth that when it's not
> really smaller enough to change it's portability? Personally I don't
> think so. But some might.
>
> I'm kind of dissapointed with the EVF. It's only 800x600 resolution.
> I'd want to see "high def" resolution 1920x1080, or at that 4:3 aspect
> ratio maybe double it to 1600x1200 before it could come close to
> matching the detail you might see in an OVF.
Don't be quite so dismissive of the 480Kpixel (800x600) DMC-G1 EVF, the
Konica-Minolta A2 has 640x480 (307Kpixel) and is almost (but not quite)
good enough for manual focus without using the focus-zoom/mag feature.
It's not a great jump in rez (307 to 480Kpix), but considering that this
is a brand new EVF design I believe that it would be prudent to at least
examine it yourself before concluding that it's rubbish.
> Also, from the review:
> "Another difference between the EVF and the LCD is the relative
> contrast ratio. When looking through the EVF at a scene with a high
> contrast ratio, detail in shadow areas falls off abruptly into
> relative blackness, while the same shadow scene on the LCD still holds
> detail. It's just a difference in the amount of contrast the LCOS chip
> inside is able to display compared to the LCD."
>
> Is that going to lead people to use the LCD and have to hold the
> camera out at arm's length? Probably not. The EVF may be good enough
> for framing, but I'd like to see something at least approaching a good
> OVF if this really is the wave of the future.
There may be some setting in a menu which can change the contrast of the
EVF, but maybe I'm hoping for too much?
> Also, the reviewer says that there's a noticable time lag between real
> time and what you see in the EVF. To me, that's unacceptable and
> absolutely must be improved before I'll use an EVF. That just adds to
> the already slower shutter lag from a DSLR.
That does sound like a bit of a deal-killer.
> And no live view when shooting in continious mode, only the captured
> shots at the frame rate? Seems like that would make tracking a fast
> subject (just when you'd want to use continuous shooting) very
> difficult.
That's a bit disappointing, adding that to the reported live-view lag
and that seems a bit sad.
> If this camera has the best EVF that's available (which it seems to),
> then EVF's still have a way to go.
>
> Also, the screen blanks out before taking an exposure so the shutter
> can close and then re-open during exposure. That doesn't solve the
> problem of the short screen blank on a DSLR to move the mirror out of
> the way. I would hope that new technology can solve old problems but
> this one hasn't.
>
> So the main conclusions I get from reading that review is that in most
> respects, it's not all that much different than something like the
> Rebel XSi. It's main benefit is that it's a bit smaller but not
> enough so to make a major difference in portability. But it has
> several detrements such as noticeably lower image quality at high ISO,
> slower AF, and a good EVF but not nearly up to OVF standards in terms
> of image quality and ability to track a moving subject.
>
> I seriously hope their next effort is better. This one could be fun
> for early adopters and techogeeks. But for photographers I don't
> think it's ready for prime time.
>
> Steve
I was hoping that the EVF would turn out to be vastly better than it is,
as Panasonic was touting it as a "1.4Mpix full-colour EVF".
Sadly it seems to be a repeat of the KM A2 "900Kpix EVF" fiasco, where
it was required to divide it by 3 to get the actual number of
full-colour pixels in the EVF and that was a bit disappointing (to say
the least).
The promise it held out (for me, at least) was a cheap digital body to
use Leica lenses on via a simple metal ring adapter, even with the 2X
crop factor of the 4/3 sensor.
If the EVF isn't really "up to snuff" then I think I'll pass.
SMS
> The promise it held out (for me, at least) was a cheap digital body to
> use Leica lenses on via a simple metal ring adapter, even with the 2X
> crop factor of the 4/3 sensor.
There are cheaper digital bodies for the Leica lenses using a Novoflex
or Hansa lens mount adapter to EOS.
There's also this one on eBay,
The seller has a good rating, so it might be worth the risk.
> If the EVF isn't really "up to snuff" then I think I'll pass.
You'll be waiting a very long time for an EVF that's "up to snuff" if
you're used to an optical viewfinder.
Chase D. Bram
>> Also, the reviewer says that there's a noticable time lag between real
>> time and what you see in the EVF. To me, that's unacceptable and
>> absolutely must be improved before I'll use an EVF. That just adds to
>> the already slower shutter lag from a DSLR.
>
>That does sound like a bit of a deal-killer.
It would be, if this was true. Unfortunately, these "Pro" reviewers and all of
our resident-trolls don't realize that this EVF "lag" is shutter-speed
dependent. Never having used a good P&S camera before they don't realize that
the EVF matches the shutter speed. Turn up the shutter speed and the lag gets
shorter. Amazing how that happens. This is one of the very best features of any
EVF, you get an instant preview in real-time of what your chosen shutter speed
will do to the subject. Turn down the shutter speed while watching a waterfall
and see the water turn into a soft artistic blur. Turn up the shutter speed when
framing a humming-bird in flight and watch as its wings change from blurs to
crisply defined feathers, before you even trip the shutter.
You'll all figure it out, some day.
Then again, the resident-troll morons never will.
Alfred Molon
> Based
> on Panasonic's market share, they've been reviewing too many Panasonic
> models.
That shouldn't be the criterium to apply when selecting cameras to
review. They should check how interesting the camera is and how many
people are potentially interested. Existing market share is quite
irrelevant.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Alfred Molon
> Yes, you're faced with the choice of holding the camera wrong and using
> the LCD (if it's not washed out by sunlight) or using the crappy EVF.
There is nothing wrong in holding a DSLR not glued to your face and the
EVF is actually excellent.
> You can tell that their target market isn't anyone that's ever used an
> SLR optical viewfinder!
I'm not particularly impressed by the optical viewfinder of my Sony
A350.
Alfred Molon
>
> I'm kind of dissapointed with the EVF. It's only 800x600 resolution.
That's excellent for an EVF. The LCD of even the best DSLRs is only
640x480.
> I'd want to see "high def" resolution 1920x1080,
Not sure if your eye would be able to see so much detail in such a small
EVF.
> Also, the reviewer says that there's a noticable time lag between real
> time and what you see in the EVF. To me, that's unacceptable and
> absolutely must be improved before I'll use an EVF. That just adds to
> the already slower shutter lag from a DSLR.
Where did you read that? They only mention 0.37 seconds shutter lag
(0.077 prefocused), but I couldn't find a word about lag in the EVF.
> So the main conclusions I get from reading that review is that in most
> respects, it's not all that much different than something like the
> Rebel XSi. It's main benefit is that it's a bit smaller but not
> enough so to make a major difference in portability. But it has
> several detrements such as noticeably lower image quality at high ISO,
> slower AF, and a good EVF but not nearly up to OVF standards in terms
> of image quality and ability to track a moving subject.
A very big benefit is also that there are no front-focus or back-focus
issues. No misaligments betwen the viewfinder and the sensor are
possible.
Most likely the vignetting performance is also very good, because the
lenses are designed speficically for digital and are very close to the
sensor. And this camera is much more robust mechanically than a DSLR
with a swinging mirror. And last, but not least, the G1 is silent,
unlike some DSLRs which wake up the dead with their swinging mirror.
SMS
> In article <JTfTk.8264$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>> Based
>> on Panasonic's market share, they've been reviewing too many Panasonic
>> models.
>
> That shouldn't be the criterium to apply when selecting cameras to
> review. They should check how interesting the camera is and how many
> people are potentially interested. Existing market share is quite
> irrelevant.
Yes, that was my point. dpreview isn't reviewing an excessive number of
Canon models versus other manufacturers. When looked at in the context
of market share, they're reviewing fewer Canon models than those of
other manufacturers. The idea that they are somehow biased against
Panasonic and biased in favor of Canon in terms of the cameras they pick
to review is ludicrous.
Similarly, while they have been reviewing far more D-SLRs than P&S, this
makes sense for them since it's D-SLRs where the largest market growth
is occurring, so that's what more of their readers are interested in.
Also, when choosing a P&S, you can quickly narrow your choices down to a
very few acceptable models based solely on feature set, and then decide
from among those models based on other factors. I.e. at
"http://dcresource.com/reviews/cameraList.php" I can specify what are
not unreasonable criteria for a non-super-zoom:
-AF Assist Lamp
-Image Stabilizer
-Wide Angle Lens
-2.5"-3.0" LCD
-Optical/Electronic Viewfinder
-3x-5x Optical Zoom
and there are only three models that show up.
Change the zoom to 15X add "external flash" and "manual exposure" and
only two models show up (a third is on its way but not released yet).
For D-SLRs, there are a lot more choices of capable models, so they need
more reviews.
Steve
There is still some lag even with high shutter speeds. Also, I don't
*want* the EVF to lag even when I'm using a slow shutter speed. I
don't *want* the EVF to show an artistically blurred waterfall. Let
the LCD display a "live view" that lags, shows the effects of changing
the shutter, whatever. Then you can see what your "custom" shutter
speed is doing to the image. But I want my viewfinder to show me in
real time exactly what the camera is pointing at no matter what I've
done to the settings. If a viewfinder can't do that, it's not of much
value.
Steve
Brandon S.
Then you'll be pleased to know you can have it both ways on the G1. Though I
would prefer this feature to always be actively engaged (as already exists on
all my P&S cameras for the last 7 years) and allowed to turn it off when needed,
instead of the other way round (see below). And this reviewer calls this a
"unique mode"? LOL Where's he been for the last 8 years? No doubt playing with
his expensive and shiny but less capable DSLRs instead of more advanced P&S
cameras that have always had a similar feature. These DSLR idiots are amazed by
some of the simplest of things that the rest of us, who know better and realize
the benefits of them, have been enjoying these "unique features" for ages on all
of our P&S cameras.
"Depth-of-time preview. The Panasonic G1 has a depth-of-field preview button,
right below the five-button navigator on the back, which stops down the lens
aperture to your current setting. But the G1 also has a unique mode called
Shutter Speed Preview. First press the Preview button to activate the
depth-of-field preview, then press the Display button. The camera will then
leave the aperture stopped down and essentially expose the sensor at the
selected shutter speed, refreshing the display at the intervals set. For
example, if you want to capture a waterfall at f/8 to get most of the picture in
focus, and you want the water to appear as a soft cascade, you can set the
camera to the aperture you want and see the live effect onscreen. If it's too
bright or dark, you can make the necessary adjustments to ISO, aperture, and
shutter speed and work out just how you want the photo to look without taking a
bunch of test shots."
Try using some real cameras one day Steve, you'll figure it out, instead of just
wrongly trying to visualize how things should work in your virtual-photography
career.
Steve
>On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:32:57 GMT, Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:26:23 -0600, Chase D. Bram
>><cdb...@whatgoeshere.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 02:55:10 +1100, dj_nme <dj_...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Also, the reviewer says that there's a noticable time lag between real
>>>>> time and what you see in the EVF. To me, that's unacceptable and
>>>>> absolutely must be improved before I'll use an EVF. That just adds to
>>>>> the already slower shutter lag from a DSLR.
>>>>
>>>>That does sound like a bit of a deal-killer.
>>>
>>>It would be, if this was true. Unfortunately, these "Pro" reviewers and all of
>>>our resident-trolls don't realize that this EVF "lag" is shutter-speed
>>>dependent. Never having used a good P&S camera before they don't realize that
>>>the EVF matches the shutter speed. Turn up the shutter speed and the lag gets
>>>shorter. Amazing how that happens. This is one of the very best features of any
>>>EVF, you get an instant preview in real-time of what your chosen shutter speed
>>>will do to the subject. Turn down the shutter speed while watching a waterfall
>>>and see the water turn into a soft artistic blur. Turn up the shutter speed when
>>>framing a humming-bird in flight and watch as its wings change from blurs to
>>>crisply defined feathers, before you even trip the shutter.
You're absolutely wrong about this regarding the G1. The G1's EVF lag
is in no way related to shutter speed. It has a mechanical focal
plane shutter that is not doing anything when a picture is not being
taken.
>>There is still some lag even with high shutter speeds. Also, I don't
>>*want* the EVF to lag even when I'm using a slow shutter speed. I
>>don't *want* the EVF to show an artistically blurred waterfall. Let
>>the LCD display a "live view" that lags, shows the effects of changing
>>the shutter, whatever. Then you can see what your "custom" shutter
>>speed is doing to the image. But I want my viewfinder to show me in
>>real time exactly what the camera is pointing at no matter what I've
>>done to the settings. If a viewfinder can't do that, it's not of much
>>value.
>
>Then you'll be pleased to know you can have it both ways on the G1. Though I
>would prefer this feature to always be actively engaged (as already exists on
>all my P&S cameras for the last 7 years) and allowed to turn it off when needed,
If the G1 actually did let you have it both ways that would be fine.
But it doesn't. The EVF lags real time. The EVF only shows the
captured photos when continuous shooting, not the continuous view that
you need to help track a moving subject.
By taking a fault and turning it into a "feature", you're no better
than if microsoft said that the blue screen of death was a feature
intended to calibrate your monitor's blue color response.
This is why both of the P&S cameras I own also have optical
viewfinders. I use them in some situations, and use the LCD in others
and I decide when it's appropriate to use one or the other. I don't
want the camera manufacturer deciding that I don't need to see what
the camera is pointing at. That's what they've done with the G1.
Steve
Steve
>In article <b0tqh41oo3phr69ii...@4ax.com>, Steve says...
>>
>> I'm kind of dissapointed with the EVF. It's only 800x600 resolution.
>
>That's excellent for an EVF. The LCD of even the best DSLRs is only
>640x480.
But DSLRs give you a choice of using the low resolution LCD (and
800x600 is low resolution) or an optical viewfinder. You don't get
that choice with the G1.
>
>> I'd want to see "high def" resolution 1920x1080,
>
>Not sure if your eye would be able to see so much detail in such a small
>EVF.
Nonsense. If you can see the detail in 1920x1080 on a 60" screen from
5' away, then you can see the detail in 1920x1080 on a 1" screen from
from 1" away as long as there's a lens that lets your eye focus that
close.
>> Also, the reviewer says that there's a noticable time lag between real
>> time and what you see in the EVF. To me, that's unacceptable and
>> absolutely must be improved before I'll use an EVF. That just adds to
>> the already slower shutter lag from a DSLR.
>
>Where did you read that? They only mention 0.37 seconds shutter lag
>(0.077 prefocused), but I couldn't find a word about lag in the EVF.
From the article:
"An SLR gives you the view at the speed of light, but electrical live
view systems introduce some lag as the image is captured, processed,
and written to the LCD. Extra lag means that you're more likely to
miss the moment you see on the screen, adding to the overall shutter
lag."
>> So the main conclusions I get from reading that review is that in most
>> respects, it's not all that much different than something like the
>> Rebel XSi. It's main benefit is that it's a bit smaller but not
>> enough so to make a major difference in portability. But it has
>> several detrements such as noticeably lower image quality at high ISO,
>> slower AF, and a good EVF but not nearly up to OVF standards in terms
>> of image quality and ability to track a moving subject.
>
>A very big benefit is also that there are no front-focus or back-focus
Wrong yet again. From the article:
"I found a leaf bug on the screen outside our office, and tried to get
a decent shot of him. The G1 didn't focus on it well until I popped up
the flash, which helped increase the depth of field. Even then it
seems to have front-focused on my subject just a tad, which I could
perceive on the LCD, but didn't manage to fix it before the bug got
tired of me and flew away."
>issues. No misaligments betwen the viewfinder and the sensor are
>possible.
>Most likely the vignetting performance is also very good, because the
>lenses are designed speficically for digital and are very close to the
>sensor. And this camera is much more robust mechanically than a DSLR
>with a swinging mirror. And last, but not least, the G1 is silent,
>unlike some DSLRs which wake up the dead with their swinging mirror.
Wrong yet again. The G1 has a mechanical shutter which is not silent.
Check the article again for a video of the shutter in action.
Steve
Terry Parker
>Nonsense. If you can see the detail in 1920x1080 on a 60" screen from
>5' away, then you can see the detail in 1920x1080 on a 1" screen from
>from 1" away as long as there's a lens that lets your eye focus that
>close.
It's not about distance, moron. It's about apparent angular size of those
details. If the size of that display has details finer than you can resolve due
to its apparent size (not its measured size, the angular size it takes up in
your eye's FOV), then that is more than enough.
Can you see the individual pixels in that 1920x1080 display from 5' away? No. I
bet you can't even see the individual display pixels on a 1280x1024 LCD display
from just 18 inches away. Put a 640x480 display 5' away from you and if that
screen is not over 2ftx2ft in size (rough estimate) then you'll still not see
the individual pixels. It's all about how much angular distance those details
will span on your retina that determines if that is enough resolution or not.
You are one sad case, even as resident-troll morons go.
Alfred Molon
>
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:12:22 +0100, Alfred Molon
> <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <b0tqh41oo3phr69ii...@4ax.com>, Steve says...
> >>
> >> I'm kind of dissapointed with the EVF. It's only 800x600 resolution.
> >
> >That's excellent for an EVF. The LCD of even the best DSLRs is only
> >640x480.
>
> But DSLRs give you a choice of using the low resolution LCD (and
> 800x600 is low resolution) or an optical viewfinder. You don't get
> that choice with the G1.
Still 800x600 RGB is excellent in a viewfinder. You wrote that the EVF
is disappointing.
> >A very big benefit is also that there are no front-focus or back-focus
>
> Wrong yet again. From the article:
> "I found a leaf bug on the screen outside our office, and tried to get
> a decent shot of him. The G1 didn't focus on it well until I popped up
> the flash, which helped increase the depth of field. Even then it
> seems to have front-focused on my subject just a tad, which I could
> perceive on the LCD, but didn't manage to fix it before the bug got
> tired of me and flew away."
Possibly the G1 chose to focus on the front part of the bug for that
specific image. But since the main sensor is used for focus, unlike in a
DSLR where a separate sensor is used which might not be perfectly
aligned with the main sensor, there is no front-focus or back-focus
issue. In a DLSR instead, if for any reason the AF sensor is misaligned
*all* images will have focus issues.
<snip>
> Wrong yet again. The G1 has a mechanical shutter which is not silent.
> Check the article again for a video of the shutter in action.
Most non-DSLRs have a mechanical shutter. But that is nothing compared
to the noise of the swinging mirror in a DSLR, which in the case of the
Sony A350 wakes up the dead.
LarryEvans
>Wrong yet again. From the article:
>"I found a leaf bug on the screen outside our office, and tried to get
>a decent shot of him. The G1 didn't focus on it well until I popped up
>the flash, which helped increase the depth of field. Even then it
>seems to have front-focused on my subject just a tad, which I could
>perceive on the LCD, but didn't manage to fix it before the bug got
>tired of me and flew away."
I got tired of his review just as fast as that insect tired of him, and left his
pages behind. He clearly doesn't know how to use any cameras properly. Like most
camera reviewers online.
That's photo doesn't show a problem with front/back focus issues. That photo
shows the problem of a moron that doesn't know where his camera's
focus-detection areas are, the size of the focus-detection region(s), and being
able to aim his camera properly to use them effectively. I laughed when I saw
that shot. It clearly revealed an idiot snapshooter at the helm. The very first
thing I do on any new camera is use a high-resolution graphic and find the edges
of the focus detection regions and remember their sizes, then if I do have to
depend on auto-focus at least I'll be ready to use it properly. Knowing that you
don't put high-contrasting lines that will cause a mis-focus anywhere inside of
the focus-detection region. Just as the moron reviewer did with the
window-screen, as any typical snap-shooter moron would. LEARN YOUR CAMERA.
Focus-detection regions in any camera are never exactly defined where the
manufacturer claim it is in your viewfinder. But then, you would know this if
you ever used any real cameras and tested them yourself.
Although, let's chalk up one more example (that photo) on why nobody in their
right mind would ever depend on any auto-focusing system for anything important.
Auto-focusing of any type is for the complete amateur snapshooter. Most everyone
understands immediately when you use the phrase "front or back focus issues",
that phrase having gotten its birth from the DSLR phase-focusing crowd. I found
it odd that the moron reviewer even used that term. It's use is completely
unheard of in the P&S contrast-focusing world. There's no such thing as
front/back focusing on a contrast-focusing system when the camera is used
properly. Again, revealing the reviewer's ignorance and stupidity.
Auto-focusing fans can enjoy all their missed shots and blame their cameras for
their inability to be a real photographer.
If they JUST buy another camera, a better camera, a more expensive camera, a
faster focusing camera, only then will they be able to focus it right and stop
missing all those shots.
Dang, if that doesn't sound exactly like YOUR problem. You bitch about the very
same things.
<insert gales of laughter>
Alfred Molon
>
> The G1's EVF lag
> is in no way related to shutter speed.
And how would you know? Have you ever used a G1?
The lag in the EVF of the Sony R1 I have here very clearly depends on
the exposure time. Choose 1/6s and when I move the hand quickly in front
of the camera it shows up blurred, while if I chose 1/60s exposure time
there is no visible lag in the EVF.
Steve
>In article <mogrh4pha15h54gfq...@4ax.com>, Steve says...
>>
>> The G1's EVF lag
>> is in no way related to shutter speed.
>
>And how would you know? Have you ever used a G1?
I'm only going by what the reviewer said. He said there is EVF lag.
It can't be due to the shutter because the shutter is not actively
doing anything except when you take a picture and maybe when it does
the depth of time preview.
>The lag in the EVF of the Sony R1 I have here very clearly depends on
>the exposure time. Choose 1/6s and when I move the hand quickly in front
>of the camera it shows up blurred, while if I chose 1/60s exposure time
>there is no visible lag in the EVF.
I'll bet there is visible lag in the EVF. It may be small with fast
shutter time, but it's there. It's there on every single EVF and live
view LCD I've ever seen and yes, it's worse with a slower shutter.
If you actually stopped to think for a minute you'd realize there has
to be lag. All the things needed to read the photons off the sensor,
process them into an image, rescale that image for the LCD or EVF and
display the image on the LCD or EVF takes time. Slowing down the
shutter speed only makes it take more time.
Steve
Hap-Tolister
But lets not think about the time it takes to engage a solenoid to pull a heavy
mirror out of the way, wait for that to slap loudly out of the way, shaking the
camera while it does so and destroys some image resolution in the process, then
trigger another solenoid to trigger a focal-plane shutter curtain.
Heaven forbid that you should have to consider THAT agonizingly loud and
obnoxious and image destroying DELAY.
LOL
You fuckin' moron.
Steve
>On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:53:43 GMT, Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>Nonsense. If you can see the detail in 1920x1080 on a 60" screen from
>>5' away, then you can see the detail in 1920x1080 on a 1" screen from
>>from 1" away as long as there's a lens that lets your eye focus that
>>close.
>
>It's not about distance, moron. It's about apparent angular size of those
>details. If the size of that display has details finer than you can resolve due
>to its apparent size (not its measured size, the angular size it takes up in
>your eye's FOV), then that is more than enough.
It's exactly about the angular size of the details. That's why I gave
the example I gave. The angular size is the same. I.e., the angular
size for each pixel of a 60" 1920x1080 at 5' away is the exact same as
the angular size of each pixel of a 1" 1920x1080 at 1" away. It's
also the exact same as a 20" display 20" away. And I can *absolutely*
see the difference between 800x600 and 1920x1080 on a 20" screen from
20" away. Therefore, I can also see the difference on a 1" screen
from 1" away. And 800x600 is pathetic these days. 20 years ago it
wasn't bad though.
Again, if you took the time to think before you type, you won't look
like such a fool with every post.
>Can you see the individual pixels in that 1920x1080 display from 5' away? No. I
>bet you can't even see the individual display pixels on a 1280x1024 LCD display
>from just 18 inches away. Put a 640x480 display 5' away from you and if that
>screen is not over 2ftx2ft in size (rough estimate) then you'll still not see
>the individual pixels. It's all about how much angular distance those details
>will span on your retina that determines if that is enough resolution or not.
If you can't tell the difference in detail between 640x480 pixels and
1920x1080 pixels on a 20" display from 20" away, then you need to get
your eyes checked. But then again, that would certainly explain why
you think the quality of images from a P&S is as good as a DSLR.
Steve
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:14:06 +0100, Alfred Molon
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <pahrh41jiqbmkorma...@4ax.com>, Steve says...
>>
>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:12:22 +0100, Alfred Molon
>> <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <b0tqh41oo3phr69ii...@4ax.com>, Steve says...
>> >>
>> >> I'm kind of dissapointed with the EVF. It's only 800x600 resolution.
>> >
>> >That's excellent for an EVF. The LCD of even the best DSLRs is only
>> >640x480.
>>
>> But DSLRs give you a choice of using the low resolution LCD (and
>> 800x600 is low resolution) or an optical viewfinder. You don't get
>> that choice with the G1.
>
>Still 800x600 RGB is excellent in a viewfinder. You wrote that the EVF
>is disappointing.
It is dissapointing and not just because the 800x600 resolution is
noticably poor compared to a good OVF. It may be good enough for an
EVF, but that's the point. Other reasons besides 1) resolution it's
disappointing include 2) very poor quality in high contrast scenes,
with all shadow details completely lost. 3) temporal lag in the
displayed image from real time 4) no EVF view during continuous
shooting. Only single captured shots.
IMHO, that last one is a deal breaker. Most of the time you want to
use continuous shooting, you're also trying to track a fast moving
subject. Showing single captured images a few times a second and time
late from real time would make properly tracking a fast moving subject
almost impossible.
So yes, I wrote that it's disappointing. And it is.
>> >A very big benefit is also that there are no front-focus or back-focus
>>
>> Wrong yet again. From the article:
>> "I found a leaf bug on the screen outside our office, and tried to get
>> a decent shot of him. The G1 didn't focus on it well until I popped up
>> the flash, which helped increase the depth of field. Even then it
>> seems to have front-focused on my subject just a tad, which I could
>> perceive on the LCD, but didn't manage to fix it before the bug got
>> tired of me and flew away."
>
>Possibly the G1 chose to focus on the front part of the bug for that
>specific image. But since the main sensor is used for focus, unlike in a
>DSLR where a separate sensor is used which might not be perfectly
>aligned with the main sensor, there is no front-focus or back-focus
>issue. In a DLSR instead, if for any reason the AF sensor is misaligned
>*all* images will have focus issues.
The usual reason a DSLR has back or front focus issues doesn't have to
do with the sensor being misaligned. That's why you see front or back
focus with some lenses and not with others. If the sensor is
misaligned and *all* images have the same front or back focus, you can
just get that fixed. That would be great. Unfortunately it's not
that simple.
>> Wrong yet again. The G1 has a mechanical shutter which is not silent.
>> Check the article again for a video of the shutter in action.
>
>Most non-DSLRs have a mechanical shutter. But that is nothing compared
>to the noise of the swinging mirror in a DSLR, which in the case of the
>Sony A350 wakes up the dead.
Most non-DSLR's have a mechanical shutter? Don't let our resident P&S
troll see you say that. The assertion was that the G1 was silent when
shooting. It's not. It may be quieter than a DSLR, but even with
DSLRs, some are much quieter than others. My D200 isn't all that
loud.
Steve
DavidAndersen
>It is dissapointing and not just because the 800x600 resolution is
>noticably poor compared to a good OVF. It may be good enough for an
>EVF, but that's the point. Other reasons besides 1) resolution it's
>disappointing include 2) very poor quality in high contrast scenes,
>with all shadow details completely lost. 3) temporal lag in the
>displayed image from real time 4) no EVF view during continuous
>shooting. Only single captured shots.
>
>IMHO, that last one is a deal breaker. Most of the time you want to
>use continuous shooting, you're also trying to track a fast moving
>subject. Showing single captured images a few times a second and time
>late from real time would make properly tracking a fast moving subject
>almost impossible.
>
>So yes, I wrote that it's disappointing. And it is.
Wow, you morons are more moronic than once thought.
Get this: the 800x600 resolution is accomplished by 800x600 RGB pixels. EACH
pixel conveys ALL THREE COLORS sequentially. This is not unlike the Foveon
sensor where one pixel captures all 3 colors. THREE TIMES THE RESOLUTION FROM
THE SAME PIXELS.
Blurb from dpreview's overview: "Large, bright electronic viewfinder (1.4x
magnification, 0.7x FF equiv). The viewfinder uses a field sequential system
that mixes red, green and blue images shown sequentially at 60fps, giving an
effective viewfinder resolution of 1.4 million dots at 180 fps."
And:
"According Panasonic LCOS technology can produce much higher resolution images
than liquid crystal display or plasma display technologies. Compared to
conventional LCDs in which the back light is projected through RGB filters and
into the eye, in LCOS, liquid crystals are applied directly to the surface of a
silicon chip coated with a highly reflective aluminized layer. RGB light is then
reflected off this surface and into the eye, therefore minimizing overall color
loss often associated with the low quality of color filters in conventional
LCDs. This allows the G1's Live Viewfinder to achieve over 90% of the NTSC color
gamut (this, apparently, is unusually high).
The G1's single panel display chip shows the red, green and blue components in
succession (field sequential display) - your brain does the combining to produce
the full color image. This means you can't see the individual pixels - there's
no gap between them (there's no mesh surrounding the color filters such as in
conventional LCD displays). The viewfinder is able to refresh the three RGB
colors at a rate of 60Hz, therefore achieving the 60fps Full-Time Live View."
Please! Go freakin' educate yourselves! Would you? You get more moronic and
idiotic with every keyboard key that you press.
If I could, I'd reach through your monitor to slap the shit and the stupid out
of each and every one of you.
HOLYFUCK! I can't believe people on this planet are this amazingly stupid!
Steve
And yet even with all of that, the image I see in the viewfinder of my
DSLR is in real time. And when I press the shutter button, it takes a
picture much faster than a P&S can. And the focus tracks a moving
object during the time it takes to move the mirror out of the way so
that everything is still nice and sharp.
Try doing this with a P&S: Take a series of pictures of a bird flying
towards you and keep the bird in focus but have the tree it just flew
out of artistically blurred. Those are the kind of shots where a DSLR
lets you express your creativity while a P&S just lets you take a
snapshot.
It's obvious you only care about snapshots. So a P&S is fine for you.
Steve
Steve
Now THAT is all total BS. When people claim 3x the real resolution
simply because there's an R, G and B subpixel for every full color
pixel, they are being completely disengenuous.
>
>And:
>
>"According Panasonic LCOS technology can produce much higher resolution images
>than liquid crystal display or plasma display technologies. Compared to
>conventional LCDs in which the back light is projected through RGB filters and
>into the eye, in LCOS, liquid crystals are applied directly to the surface of a
>silicon chip coated with a highly reflective aluminized layer. RGB light is then
>reflected off this surface and into the eye, therefore minimizing overall color
>loss often associated with the low quality of color filters in conventional
>LCDs. This allows the G1's Live Viewfinder to achieve over 90% of the NTSC color
>gamut (this, apparently, is unusually high).
>
>The G1's single panel display chip shows the red, green and blue components in
>succession (field sequential display) - your brain does the combining to produce
>the full color image. This means you can't see the individual pixels - there's
>no gap between them (there's no mesh surrounding the color filters such as in
>conventional LCD displays). The viewfinder is able to refresh the three RGB
>colors at a rate of 60Hz, therefore achieving the 60fps Full-Time Live View."
It's nice not to see gaps between pixels. It certainly makes the
display look nicer than an equivalent resolution display that has gaps
between pixels. However, you're a complete idiot if you think that
matters in terms of resolution.
But like I said, the resolution may be good enough, but that isn't the
main reason this EVF is disappointing. There's also very poor quality
in high contrast scenes, with all shadow details completely lost.
Temporal lag in the displayed image from real time. And most
importantly, no EVF view during continuous shooting. Only single
captured shots.
that last one is a deal breaker. Most of the time you want to
BrandonO'Donnel
>And when I press the shutter button, it takes a
>picture much faster than a P&S can.
Of course! Because you're nothing but a low-life armature idiot snap-shooter
that tries to rely on hit & miss auto-focusing, something that no pro in their
right mind would depend on. If you don't waste your time on your snap-shooter
dependencies of auto-focusing and all those missed shots from front/back
focusing issues, then you'll find out that most any P&S camera is actually
faster than your low-life DSLR. That bugs the shit out of you to no end, doesn't
it.
LOL
JulianGaphor
>
>that last one is a deal breaker.
GOOD! Don't buy it! The G1 is not for the amateur snapshooter like yourself!
Situation resolved!
LOL
Alfred Molon
>
> I'm only going by what the reviewer said. He said there is EVF lag.
> It can't be due to the shutter because the shutter is not actively
> doing anything except when you take a picture and maybe when it does
> the depth of time preview.
In other words you don't know and are just guessing.
> I'll bet there is visible lag in the EVF. It may be small with fast
> shutter time, but it's there. It's there on every single EVF and live
> view LCD I've ever seen and yes, it's worse with a slower shutter.
>
> If you actually stopped to think for a minute you'd realize there has
> to be lag. All the things needed to read the photons off the sensor,
> process them into an image, rescale that image for the LCD or EVF and
> display the image on the LCD or EVF takes time. Slowing down the
> shutter speed only makes it take more time.
I have checked it and didn't see any noticeable lag at the shorter
exposure time. There might be a very small lag which however isn't
noticeable and has no impact for practical purposes. Don't forget that
human reaction times are a bit longer than 10ms.
David J Taylor
[]
> I'll bet there is visible lag in the EVF. It may be small with fast
> shutter time, but it's there. It's there on every single EVF and live
> view LCD I've ever seen and yes, it's worse with a slower shutter.
> Steve
I did some tests with a number of P&S cameras I own the other day and,
indeed, this lag is visible in all of them. With some, it was even quite
noticeable with a bright sunlit screen and fast shutter speed. I would
make precise shot timing very difficult.
David
Alfred Molon
>
> And yet even with all of that, the image I see in the viewfinder of my
> DSLR is in real time.
Yes, it will be in real time. But the image you see in the viewfinder is
not what you will get. Leaving aside possible mechanical misalignments
between the viewfinder and the main sensor, the CCD has for instance
some limitations concerning dynamic range and will - generally speaking
- capture an image different from that you see in the viewfinder. At
least an EVF or LCD screen gives you a more precise idea of what will be
the final image. And BTW EVFs can display a lot of additional useful
information such as histograms or blown out areas for instance.
Alfred Molon
>
> It is dissapointing and not just because the 800x600 resolution is
> noticably poor compared to a good OVF. It may be good enough for an
> EVF, but that's the point. Other reasons besides 1) resolution it's
> disappointing include 2) very poor quality in high contrast scenes,
> with all shadow details completely lost. 3) temporal lag in the
> displayed image from real time 4) no EVF view during continuous
> shooting. Only single captured shots.
With its 800x600 screen the G1 EVF is actually a huge improvement
compared to previous EVFs which have 320x240 screens. The reviewer
himself writes:
"The electronic viewfinder is particularly impressive, easily the
clearest EVF we've seen."
Don't forget that lots of DSLR OVFs are not that good either. The OVF of
my Sony A350 sucks compared to the EVF of the Sony R1. It doesn't show
100% of the scene and it is very dark. The R1 EVF instead is bright,
big, shows exactly what you are going to capture (precise framing is
possible, unlike with an OVF). You can zoom into the image and thereby
precisely manually focus. Precise manual focus is practically impossible
with APS-C DLSRs. Might be possible with OVFs of full-frame DSRLs, but
with an APS-C DSLR forget about precise manual focus.
> IMHO, that last one is a deal breaker. Most of the time you want to
> use continuous shooting, you're also trying to track a fast moving
> subject. Showing single captured images a few times a second and time
> late from real time would make properly tracking a fast moving subject
> almost impossible.
Then use the LCD if you want to do continuos shooting.
> Most non-DSLR's have a mechanical shutter?
That is the case with all non-DLSRs I have used so far (Olympus C1400,
C2000, C4040, C5050, C8080, Sony R1). Even the tiny Olympus mju 700 of
my wife has a mechanical shutter. Not aware of many non-DSLRs with
electronic shutters
> Don't let our resident P&S
> troll see you say that. The assertion was that the G1 was silent when
> shooting. It's not. It may be quieter than a DSLR, but even with
> DSLRs, some are much quieter than others. My D200 isn't all that
> loud.
It is silent enough for practical purposes. I don't have the G1 so can't
tell you exactly how silent its shutter is, but I have a Sony R1 which
has a sensor of approx. the same size of the G1 and therefore also a
shutter of approx. the same size. When you take a photo with the R1 you
can hear a small, almost imperceptible little click. You will only
notice it if you are very close to the camera, but in a larger room
nobody will notice that you just pressed the shutter.
If you instead press the shutter of the Sony A350, the noise (a huge
clic-clac) will be so loud that everybody will notice, people will turn
their heads towards you. It is really embarassing to use the A350 for
instance in a church, because you will disturb the function. In such a
situation a camera like the G1 has huge advantages.
Alfred Molon
>
> However, you're a complete idiot if you think that
> matters in terms of resolution.
Hmmm... I'm sure the 800x600 G1 EVF has a better image than another
800x600 EVF where the individual colour dots are spatially separate.
> But like I said, the resolution may be good enough, but that isn't the
> main reason this EVF is disappointing. There's also very poor quality
> in high contrast scenes, with all shadow details completely lost.
Even if that is the case, it does not really matter because you use the
EVF for framing and focus, not to evaluate if the image was exposed
properly. For that you can use either the main LCD, otherwise the
histogram will give you a very precise idea about exposure.
> Temporal lag in the displayed image from real time.
Should be a non-issue for practical purposes, given that it should be
well below 100ms. But it is impossible to debate about this without
actually having used the camera, so I don't really understand why you
bring up this matter considering that you don't have sufficient
information.
> And most
> importantly, no EVF view during continuous shooting. Only single
> captured shots.
As I wrote use the main LCD. By the way, I perhaps use the continuos
shooting function of my camera on moving scenes 0.000...% of the time.
> that last one is a deal breaker.
>
> Most of the time you want to
> use continuous shooting, you're also trying to track a fast moving
> subject.
You do? Perhaps then you should get a DSLR with a lightning fast AF,
such as the Nikon D3 for instance. The G1 with its not so lightning fast
AF is not for you, and it is also not a camera for sports photographers.
But for most of us who need a general purpose camera and appreciate good
optical charachteristics and portability (size/weight) the G1 is an
interesting candidate.
Steve
>In article <72psh4d8p478ea95q...@4ax.com>, Steve says...
>>
>> I'm only going by what the reviewer said. He said there is EVF lag.
>> It can't be due to the shutter because the shutter is not actively
>> doing anything except when you take a picture and maybe when it does
>> the depth of time preview.
>
>In other words you don't know and are just guessing.
Lol,... You need a course in reading comprehension. Again, the EVF
lag can't be due to the shutter because the shutter is not actively
doing anything during except when it snaps a picture. So yes, I do
know and I'm not just guessing.
>> I'll bet there is visible lag in the EVF. It may be small with fast
>> shutter time, but it's there. It's there on every single EVF and live
>> view LCD I've ever seen and yes, it's worse with a slower shutter.
>>
>> If you actually stopped to think for a minute you'd realize there has
>> to be lag. All the things needed to read the photons off the sensor,
>> process them into an image, rescale that image for the LCD or EVF and
>> display the image on the LCD or EVF takes time. Slowing down the
>> shutter speed only makes it take more time.
>
>I have checked it and didn't see any noticeable lag at the shorter
>exposure time. There might be a very small lag which however isn't
>noticeable and has no impact for practical purposes. Don't forget that
>human reaction times are a bit longer than 10ms.
I'm sure it has no impact for your practical purposes. That's because
you don't use a P&S for the same type of photography that many people
use a DSLR for. I.e., tracking and shooting fast changing motion like
sports.
Steve
Steve
>In article <9rtsh4p1cltckmjnt...@4ax.com>, Steve says...
>>
>> However, you're a complete idiot if you think that
>> matters in terms of resolution.
>
>Hmmm... I'm sure the 800x600 G1 EVF has a better image than another
>800x600 EVF where the individual colour dots are spatially separate.
Which is exactly what I said. No space between color dots will make
an equivalent resolution display look better. But it will NOT resolve
any more detail. So it makes no difference in terms of resolution. It
just looks nicer, which is... well, nice.
>
>> But like I said, the resolution may be good enough, but that isn't the
>> main reason this EVF is disappointing. There's also very poor quality
>> in high contrast scenes, with all shadow details completely lost.
>
>Even if that is the case, it does not really matter because you use the
>EVF for framing and focus, not to evaluate if the image was exposed
>properly. For that you can use either the main LCD, otherwise the
>histogram will give you a very precise idea about exposure.
It could be tough to focus and frame certain things you might want to
take a picture of if all of the shadow detail is blank. Things that
have an extremely bright but small subject that you want properly
exposed but still would like to see it in relation to it's
surroundings. The surroundings would be lost.
>> Temporal lag in the displayed image from real time.
>
>Should be a non-issue for practical purposes, given that it should be
>well below 100ms. But it is impossible to debate about this without
>actually having used the camera, so I don't really understand why you
>bring up this matter considering that you don't have sufficient
>information.
I bring it up because it's an issue for fast action shooting.
Something that I do frequently. For instance, I take pictures at
airshows. It would be very difficult to get a shot like this:
http://www.airshowbuzz.com/files/photo/gallery/photos/orig_14538_5e346.JPG
if you have an EVF lag of 100ms or even half that. You'd have to
leave it to luck and maybe go to 50 airshows before you got one at the
instant the planes cross.
>> And most
>> importantly, no EVF view during continuous shooting. Only single
>> captured shots.
>
>As I wrote use the main LCD. By the way, I perhaps use the continuos
>shooting function of my camera on moving scenes 0.000...% of the time.
On the G1, the main LCD also blanks out during continuous shooting.
Obviously, if you don't use burst shooting on moving subject it's not
an issue for you. So go ahead and get one. But I do. So it's a deal
breaker.
>> that last one is a deal breaker.
>>
>> Most of the time you want to
>> use continuous shooting, you're also trying to track a fast moving
>> subject.
>
>You do? Perhaps then you should get a DSLR with a lightning fast AF,
>such as the Nikon D3 for instance. The G1 with its not so lightning fast
>AF is not for you, and it is also not a camera for sports photographers.
>But for most of us who need a general purpose camera and appreciate good
>optical charachteristics and portability (size/weight) the G1 is an
>interesting candidate.
Exactly. However, it looks like the G1 is trying to market itself as
a DSLR replacement. Especially since it costs so much. So it
obviously begs comparison with DSLRs. And one of the areas it falls
short in this comparison is with action shooting.
Steve
Steve
>In article <e5qsh41t17epng5bb...@4ax.com>, Steve says...
>>
>> It is dissapointing and not just because the 800x600 resolution is
>> noticably poor compared to a good OVF. It may be good enough for an
>> EVF, but that's the point. Other reasons besides 1) resolution it's
>> disappointing include 2) very poor quality in high contrast scenes,
>> with all shadow details completely lost. 3) temporal lag in the
>> displayed image from real time 4) no EVF view during continuous
>> shooting. Only single captured shots.
>
>With its 800x600 screen the G1 EVF is actually a huge improvement
>compared to previous EVFs which have 320x240 screens. The reviewer
>himself writes:
>"The electronic viewfinder is particularly impressive, easily the
>clearest EVF we've seen."
I agree it's impressive as far as EVFs go.
>Don't forget that lots of DSLR OVFs are not that good either. The OVF of
Agree with that also. I was just at Best Buy and there was a Canon
Rebel XSi sitting right next to a Nikon D90. The difference was
amazinig. The D90 was so much better.
>> IMHO, that last one is a deal breaker. Most of the time you want to
>> use continuous shooting, you're also trying to track a fast moving
>> subject. Showing single captured images a few times a second and time
>> late from real time would make properly tracking a fast moving subject
>> almost impossible.
>
>Then use the LCD if you want to do continuos shooting.
Can't do that either.
>> Most non-DSLR's have a mechanical shutter?
>
>That is the case with all non-DLSRs I have used so far (Olympus C1400,
>C2000, C4040, C5050, C8080, Sony R1). Even the tiny Olympus mju 700 of
>my wife has a mechanical shutter. Not aware of many non-DSLRs with
>electronic shutters
>
>> Don't let our resident P&S
>> troll see you say that. The assertion was that the G1 was silent when
>> shooting. It's not. It may be quieter than a DSLR, but even with
>> DSLRs, some are much quieter than others. My D200 isn't all that
>> loud.
>
>It is silent enough for practical purposes. I don't have the G1 so can't
>tell you exactly how silent its shutter is, but I have a Sony R1 which
>has a sensor of approx. the same size of the G1 and therefore also a
A Sony R1 is a huge camera in P&S terms. It's about as much a P&S as
a small DSLR in auto mode. I certainly can't fit one in my pocket so
I can carry it around all the time. If you're coming from an R1 and
that's what you're comparing it to, I'm sure the G1 could seem very
attractive.
Steve
Alfred Molon
>
> Exactly. However, it looks like the G1 is trying to market itself as
> a DSLR replacement. Especially since it costs so much. So it
> obviously begs comparison with DSLRs. And one of the areas it falls
> short in this comparison is with action shooting.
It's a DSLR replacement for certain purposes and these do not include
fast action. For that you need a fast AF which at the moment is only
available with phase AF systems. Sports photographers won't sell their
D3 to buy a G1.
Regarding the price you need to wait a little bit because the camera is
new.
Alfred Molon
>
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:20:22 +0100, Alfred Molon
> <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <72psh4d8p478ea95q...@4ax.com>, Steve says...
> >>
> >> I'm only going by what the reviewer said. He said there is EVF lag.
> >> It can't be due to the shutter because the shutter is not actively
> >> doing anything except when you take a picture and maybe when it does
> >> the depth of time preview.
> >
> >In other words you don't know and are just guessing.
>
> Lol,... You need a course in reading comprehension. Again, the EVF
> lag can't be due to the shutter because the shutter is not actively
> doing anything during except when it snaps a picture. So yes, I do
> know and I'm not just guessing.
Perhaps you need some course in reading comprehension. The statement was
made that the lag in the EVF is proportional to the exposure time (what
you refer to as "shutter speed"). You said that this is not the case.
But the reality is that you have nothing on which to base your claim.
> >> I'll bet there is visible lag in the EVF. It may be small with fast
> >> shutter time, but it's there. It's there on every single EVF and live
> >> view LCD I've ever seen and yes, it's worse with a slower shutter.
> >>
> >> If you actually stopped to think for a minute you'd realize there has
> >> to be lag. All the things needed to read the photons off the sensor,
> >> process them into an image, rescale that image for the LCD or EVF and
> >> display the image on the LCD or EVF takes time. Slowing down the
> >> shutter speed only makes it take more time.
> >
> >I have checked it and didn't see any noticeable lag at the shorter
> >exposure time. There might be a very small lag which however isn't
> >noticeable and has no impact for practical purposes. Don't forget that
> >human reaction times are a bit longer than 10ms.
>
> I'm sure it has no impact for your practical purposes. That's because
> you don't use a P&S for the same type of photography that many people
> use a DSLR for. I.e., tracking and shooting fast changing motion like
> sports.
Let's say it has no impact for anybody who doesn't care about a 10ms or
so delay.
SMS
> In article <t5qth4h5jobgce8nh...@4ax.com>, Steve says...
>> Exactly. However, it looks like the G1 is trying to market itself as
>> a DSLR replacement. Especially since it costs so much. So it
>> obviously begs comparison with DSLRs. And one of the areas it falls
>> short in this comparison is with action shooting.
>
> It's a DSLR replacement for certain purposes and these do not include
> fast action.
Oh please. It's a P&S with interchangeable lenses. Period. Yeah, it's
better than using funky lens adapters on a P&S to get wide-angle and
long tele, but that's it.
Steve
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:30:54 +0100, Alfred Molon
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <9ppth4phtlodkkcg0...@4ax.com>, Steve says...
>>
>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:20:22 +0100, Alfred Molon
>> <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <72psh4d8p478ea95q...@4ax.com>, Steve says...
>> >>
>> >> I'm only going by what the reviewer said. He said there is EVF lag.
>> >> It can't be due to the shutter because the shutter is not actively
>> >> doing anything except when you take a picture and maybe when it does
>> >> the depth of time preview.
>> >
>> >In other words you don't know and are just guessing.
>>
>> Lol,... You need a course in reading comprehension. Again, the EVF
>> lag can't be due to the shutter because the shutter is not actively
>> doing anything during except when it snaps a picture. So yes, I do
>> know and I'm not just guessing.
>
>Perhaps you need some course in reading comprehension. The statement was
>made that the lag in the EVF is proportional to the exposure time (what
>you refer to as "shutter speed"). You said that this is not the case.
>But the reality is that you have nothing on which to base your claim.
No, the article does not say that the lag in the EVF is proportional
to the exposure time. If it did say that, then I'd agree that it has
something to do with shutter speed. But it does not.
>> >> I'll bet there is visible lag in the EVF. It may be small with fast
>> >> shutter time, but it's there. It's there on every single EVF and live
>> >> view LCD I've ever seen and yes, it's worse with a slower shutter.
>> >>
>> >> If you actually stopped to think for a minute you'd realize there has
>> >> to be lag. All the things needed to read the photons off the sensor,
>> >> process them into an image, rescale that image for the LCD or EVF and
>> >> display the image on the LCD or EVF takes time. Slowing down the
>> >> shutter speed only makes it take more time.
>> >
>> >I have checked it and didn't see any noticeable lag at the shorter
>> >exposure time. There might be a very small lag which however isn't
>> >noticeable and has no impact for practical purposes. Don't forget that
>> >human reaction times are a bit longer than 10ms.
>>
>> I'm sure it has no impact for your practical purposes. That's because
>> you don't use a P&S for the same type of photography that many people
>> use a DSLR for. I.e., tracking and shooting fast changing motion like
>> sports.
>
>Let's say it has no impact for anybody who doesn't care about a 10ms or
>so delay.
A 10ms delay does have an impact for someone who doesn't care about a
10ms delay. But they just don't care.
Steve
Steve
>In article <t5qth4h5jobgce8nh...@4ax.com>, Steve says...
>>
>> Exactly. However, it looks like the G1 is trying to market itself as
>> a DSLR replacement. Especially since it costs so much. So it
>> obviously begs comparison with DSLRs. And one of the areas it falls
>> short in this comparison is with action shooting.
>
>It's a DSLR replacement for certain purposes and these do not include
>fast action. For that you need a fast AF which at the moment is only
>available with phase AF systems. Sports photographers won't sell their
>D3 to buy a G1.
Well jeez, a pocket sized P&S is also a DSLR replacement for certain
purposes. But they are not being marketed or priced that way. So
I'll give them a break and won't compare them to a D3 for sports
photography. But the G1 is being marketed and priced as a DSLR
replacement. I'm also not going to compare it with a D3 because it's
obvious where that comparison will lead. But I am going to compare it
with similarly priced low-end DSLRs.
>Regarding the price you need to wait a little bit because the camera is
>new.
I think I need to wait for the G2.
Steve
Alfred Molon
>
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:30:54 +0100, Alfred Molon
> <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <9ppth4phtlodkkcg0...@4ax.com>, Steve says...
> >>
> >> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:20:22 +0100, Alfred Molon
> >> <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <72psh4d8p478ea95q...@4ax.com>, Steve says...
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm only going by what the reviewer said. He said there is EVF lag.
> >> >> It can't be due to the shutter because the shutter is not actively
> >> >> doing anything except when you take a picture and maybe when it does
> >> >> the depth of time preview.
> >> >
> >> >In other words you don't know and are just guessing.
> >>
> >> Lol,... You need a course in reading comprehension. Again, the EVF
> >> lag can't be due to the shutter because the shutter is not actively
> >> doing anything during except when it snaps a picture. So yes, I do
> >> know and I'm not just guessing.
> >
> >Perhaps you need some course in reading comprehension. The statement was
> >made that the lag in the EVF is proportional to the exposure time (what
> >you refer to as "shutter speed"). You said that this is not the case.
> >But the reality is that you have nothing on which to base your claim.
>
> No, the article does not say that the lag in the EVF is proportional
> to the exposure time. If it did say that, then I'd agree that it has
> something to do with shutter speed. But it does not.
It wasn't the article which stated that. It was our friend, the DLSR
critic. Then you jumped in and claimed this wasn't the case.
Alfred Molon
Oh my dog Steve, what is a P&S with interchangeable lenses? The G1 is an
alternative to a DSLR for those who don't need lightning fast AF and
value portability and image quality.
eddy bachman
A simple optics lesson that this moron will always fail to grasp.
How is a fixed-focal-length lens with 7 elements in 4 groups different than a
longer focal-length lens with 10 elements in 5 groups? Keeping in mind that
those 3 additional elements in 1 group that turn the fixed-focal-length lens
into a longer focal-length lens are basically the very same components that are
used in a P&S tel-extender? This is NO different than having a very capable
modular lens system, with no extra degradation of image if those glass
components are matched well. Which is very often the case. But you'll never know
this. You've never owned any cameras nor lenses. You prove it daily through your
tomes of spewed ignorance.
SMS
> In article <piDTk.11683$Ws1....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> In article <t5qth4h5jobgce8nh...@4ax.com>, Steve says...
>>>> Exactly. However, it looks like the G1 is trying to market itself as
>>>> a DSLR replacement. Especially since it costs so much. So it
>>>> obviously begs comparison with DSLRs. And one of the areas it falls
>>>> short in this comparison is with action shooting.
>>> It's a DSLR replacement for certain purposes and these do not include
>>> fast action.
>> Oh please. It's a P&S with interchangeable lenses. Period. Yeah, it's
>> better than using funky lens adapters on a P&S to get wide-angle and
>> long tele, but that's it.
>
> Oh my dog Steve, what is a P&S with interchangeable lenses? The G1 is an
> alternative to a DSLR for those who don't need lightning fast AF and
> value portability and image quality.
Okay, "D-SLR alternative" is good. However according the review, "As for
overall image quality, we found the Panasonic G1's performance to be
quite good, but it doesn't match the Rebel XSi at higher ISO settings".
Duh. It's a much smaller sensor. Sure it's better than a typical P&S,
but it's no D-SLR replacement when it comes to image quality.
Alfred Molon
> Duh. It's a much smaller sensor. Sure it's better than a typical P&S,
> but it's no D-SLR replacement when it comes to image quality.
The Canon has slightly less noise at ISO 1600, but the G1 should have
much less vignetting and better corner performance given that the lens
is much closer to the sensor and that the lenses are designed from
scratch for digital. Overall the G1 should outperform a standard DSLR
optically (unless perhaps you use some very special lenses on the DSLR).
This is of course just a guess because the review does not compare
vignetting of the G1 and rebel Xsi and corner performance.
Steve
It's much, way, completely different. And you even said they key to
why it's different. No matter how well you try, you cannot build a
mix and match modular system of add-on lenses where the
elements/groups are matched as well as the elements/groups within a
single lens.
It may be very often the case you can match things that produce an
acceptably muddy image. But you'll never do it as well as current
lens design where the designer has control of every element/group.
Years ago, when lens design was much more trial and error than the
computer aided designs of today, you may have had a hope of being
comparible to some of the lesser designs. Not anymore.
Steve
CaseyPearson
Amazing. You ARE a moron.
Some of those lens designs are matched PERFECTLY to the camera for which they
are intended. For example, I have an excellent Zeiss lens on a P&S camera with
the matched tel-converter for it also designed by Zeiss FOR THAT SPECIFIC LENS
ON THAT CAMERA.
Get your head out of your ass and stop commenting on things that you have
absolutely no knowledge of, except for second-hand parroted net-rumor reports
from other know-nothing trolls like yourself.
If you have not personally owned, used and extensively tested over 50 P&S
cameras then you don't have any right to say anything about any of them as a
whole. Nor will you ever be believed by those that own P&S cameras that will
most certainly contradict everything that you have ever believed about them.
As I started out.
Amazing. You ARE a moron.
SMS
> It may be very often the case you can match things that produce an
> acceptably muddy image. But you'll never do it as well as current
> lens design where the designer has control of every element/group.
Very true. And often the converter designed for a specific camera is
worse than a converter from another manufacturer (that was the case with
the Canon conversion lens for the G series versus someone else's
conversion lens).
You might get lucky on occasion, and get something that works okay, but
you'll _never_ get as good results as you will from a lens with matched
elements.
Paul Furman
>
> The other major limiting factors for the p&s are:
> - lens range/flexibility. The G1 addresses that, even if there are some
> limitations on the current choices. *If* the format takes off, there
> will be few limitations in the future as Tamron/Sigma/etc jump on board.
Won't wide angle be the limitation? And lens speed.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
SMS
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>>
>> The other major limiting factors for the p&s are:
>> - lens range/flexibility. The G1 addresses that, even if there are
>> some limitations on the current choices. *If* the format takes off,
>> there will be few limitations in the future as Tamron/Sigma/etc jump
>> on board.
>
> Won't wide angle be the limitation? And lens speed.
Yes. For 4:3 you have the Olympus Zuiko 7-14mm f/4.0 Lens, which has a
rather ridiculous street price $1450, and gives you 14-28mm in 35mm
equivalent. So what will they make for Micro 4:3? Will it be under $1000?!
The Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 has a 16mm-35mm equivalent and has a street
price of about $670, less than half what the Olympus costs. Ditto for
Nikon's 12-24mm f/4.0 (18-36mm equivalent) with a street price of $875.
All of these lenses have excellent quality optics, and are not budget
lenses. The Canon is quite a good deal, comparatively speaking. Ken
Rockwell stated "This (the Canon 10-22mm) is a great lens. It's so great
it makes me want to swap over to Canon from Nikon, because it's better
than my favorite Nikon 12 - 24 mm lens. It's better because it has less
distortion and costs less."
An extreme wide-angle lens for the G1 would at least provide a way to
get extreme wide-angle on a P&S camera, something that isn't currently
possible, unless you start stacking up funky conversion lenses.
I do have the Canon 10-22mm, and it's probably my most used lens, since
I do a lot of photography of large groups.
Paul Furman
> Full review now up:
>
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCG1/DMCG1A.HTM
>
> Gets a pretty good wrap..
Also this PREview: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/PanasonicG1/
Sounds like the best EVF currently available in a still camera (taken
from a high end video camera) at 800x600 although not vastly larger than
the live view LCD on a Nikon D300 at 640x480.
I don't see anything about converters for other lenses but any lens with
an aperture ring should work. It might be useful for long telephoto
shooting if the lens has great center sharpness. Probably that means
stopped down in full sun, it'll have a crop factor of about 2x. So a
300mm full format lens would look like 450mm on APS & like 600mm on this.
Paul Furman
> In article <JTfTk.8264$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>> Based
>> on Panasonic's market share, they've been reviewing too many Panasonic
>> models.
>
> That shouldn't be the criterium to apply when selecting cameras to
> review. They should check how interesting the camera is and how many
> people are potentially interested. Existing market share is quite
> irrelevant.
They make money from advertising I assume so whatever gets clicks...
Paul Furman
> dj_nme wrote:
>
>> The promise it held out (for me, at least) was a cheap digital body to
>> use Leica lenses on via a simple metal ring adapter, even with the 2X
>> crop factor of the 4/3 sensor.
>
> There are cheaper digital bodies for the Leica lenses using a Novoflex
> or Hansa lens mount adapter to EOS.
>
> There's also this one on eBay,
That's only good for macro or the Novo has a glass element to convert.
> "http://cgi.ebay.com/AF-Confirm-Adapter-Leica-R-Lens-to-Canon-EOS-Body_W0QQitemZ330221858361QQcmdZViewItem"
>
>
> The seller has a good rating, so it might be worth the risk.
>
> > If the EVF isn't really "up to snuff" then I think I'll pass.
>
> You'll be waiting a very long time for an EVF that's "up to snuff" if
> you're used to an optical viewfinder.
dj_nme
> SMS wrote:
>> dj_nme wrote:
>>
>>> The promise it held out (for me, at least) was a cheap digital body
>>> to use Leica lenses on via a simple metal ring adapter, even with the
>>> 2X crop factor of the 4/3 sensor.
>>
>> There are cheaper digital bodies for the Leica lenses using a Novoflex
>> or Hansa lens mount adapter to EOS.
>>
>> There's also this one on eBay,
>
> That's only good for macro or the Novo has a glass element to convert.
Not quite true, the Leica SLR lenses have the same back-focus distance
as M42 and Pentax-K mount and are adaptable via a simple metal ring to
EOS or 4/3.
That's not what I'm after, RF lenses (M or M39) are what I meant and
these cannot be adapted to any (d)SLR camera for anything other than
macro use.
J. Clarke
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Full review now up:
>>
>> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCG1/DMCG1A.HTM
>>
>> Gets a pretty good wrap..
>
> Also this PREview: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/PanasonicG1/
>
> Sounds like the best EVF currently available in a still camera
> (taken
> from a high end video camera) at 800x600 although not vastly larger
> than the live view LCD on a Nikon D300 at 640x480.
>
> I don't see anything about converters for other lenses but any lens
> with an aperture ring should work. It might be useful for long
> telephoto shooting if the lens has great center sharpness. Probably
> that means stopped down in full sun, it'll have a crop factor of
> about 2x. So a 300mm full format lens would look like 450mm on APS &
> like 600mm on this.
The flange distance on Micro four thirds is about 20mm, which is
enough less than that of the Leica M that Leica M lenses should be
usable with a suitable adapter. Not sure of the significance of that,
if there is any, but thought I'd throw it out.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
SMS
> I think they're going to have to do a little better though, at least
> for that price and for what the competition, such as a cheap low-end
> DSLR like a D60 brings to the table for $200 less. Not even counting
> the lens choices available since this G1 is something fairly new
> compared to the Nikon F mount,
Very true. Lens availability and lens cost is a big factor in selecting
an interchangeable lens camera.
If the cost of the Olympus 4:3 wide angle lens (7-14mm) is any
indication of what's to come with Micro 4:3, then the Micro 4:3 cameras
are an even poorer choice than D-SLRs than they already are.
Same applies to any brand of D-SLR, don't buy one thinking that the lens
you want, that doesn't yet exist, is coming soon at a price comparable
to other D-SLR manufacturer's lenses of similar focal length and quality.
1. Canon had no 18-200 IS lens for more than a year after Nikon had one.
Yeah, these lenses are usually pretty mediocre at the wide end, and
neither Nikon's or Canon's version is great, but it's a lens that a lot
of people want for a "walking around" lens (I'd pass on a lens that is
neither very wide, nor very long, and doesn't do wide very well, even
though on paper it looked good and I thought I wanted one at first).
2. Canon's extreme wide-angle zoom (10-22mm) is much cheaper (and wider)
than Nikon's 12-24mm and better optical quality, prompting Nikon
aficionado Ken Rockwell to state: "It's so great it makes me want to
swap over to Canon from Nikon...."
3. At the high end, Nikon still doesn't have any equivalent to Canon's
"BWLs." Nikon either can't, or won't, make fluorite element lenses.
It's way too early to buy a G1. Don't be an early adopter! Wait and see
which lenses will be available, and wait for other Micro 4:3 cameras to
improve on the G1.
Paul Furman
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:20:22 +0100, Alfred Molon
> <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <72psh4d8p478ea95q...@4ax.com>, Steve says...
>>> I'm only going by what the reviewer said. He said there is EVF lag.
>>> It can't be due to the shutter because the shutter is not actively
>>> doing anything except when you take a picture and maybe when it does
>>> the depth of time preview.
>> In other words you don't know and are just guessing.
>
> lag can't be due to the shutter because the shutter is not actively
Presumably the live view DSLRs have an electronic shutter. Mine shows
more lag with slow shutter speeds.
>>> I'll bet there is visible lag in the EVF. It may be small with fast
>>> shutter time, but it's there. It's there on every single EVF and live
>>> view LCD I've ever seen and yes, it's worse with a slower shutter.
>>>
>>> If you actually stopped to think for a minute you'd realize there has
>>> to be lag. All the things needed to read the photons off the sensor,
>>> process them into an image, rescale that image for the LCD or EVF and
>>> display the image on the LCD or EVF takes time. Slowing down the
>>> shutter speed only makes it take more time.
>> I have checked it and didn't see any noticeable lag at the shorter
>> exposure time. There might be a very small lag which however isn't
>> noticeable and has no impact for practical purposes. Don't forget that
>> human reaction times are a bit longer than 10ms.
>
> I'm sure it has no impact for your practical purposes. That's because
> you don't use a P&S for the same type of photography that many people
> use a DSLR for. I.e., tracking and shooting fast changing motion like
> sports.
>
> Steve
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> 2. Canon's extreme wide-angle zoom (10-22mm) is much cheaper (and wider)
> than Nikon's 12-24mm and better optical quality, prompting Nikon
> aficionado Ken Rockwell to state: "It's so great it makes me want to
> swap over to Canon from Nikon...."
ken rockwell admits he makes up stuff. he also claims he can't tell
the difference between a canon 5d and a pocket sized digicam. are you
sure he's the source you want to quote?
> 3. At the high end, Nikon still doesn't have any equivalent to Canon's
> "BWLs." Nikon either can't, or won't, make fluorite element lenses.
they use different formulations. just because it's flourite doesn't
mean it's the worlds best lens. both nikon and canon have great
lenses.
Steve
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:32:04 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:20:22 +0100, Alfred Molon
>> <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <72psh4d8p478ea95q...@4ax.com>, Steve says...
>>>> I'm only going by what the reviewer said. He said there is EVF lag.
>>>> It can't be due to the shutter because the shutter is not actively
>>>> doing anything except when you take a picture and maybe when it does
>>>> the depth of time preview.
>>> In other words you don't know and are just guessing.
>>
>> ....the EVF
>> lag can't be due to the shutter because the shutter is not actively
>> doing anything during except when it snaps a picture....
>
>Presumably the live view DSLRs have an electronic shutter. Mine shows
>more lag with slow shutter speeds.
This camera has a special mode, a depth-of-time preview that's not
always active. I don't know whether they use an electronic shutter to
show the depth of time preview or actually snap series of shots with
he mechanical shutter. The review says that when in that mode, the
display is refreshed at a preset interval so it leads me to believe
they're using the mechanical shutter. Either way, I don't see why
they'd slow down the shutter to the user set value when not in that
depth-of-time preview mode.
And if they are using the mechanical shutter with a display that
updates at preset intervals, I don't see how it's all that much
different than any other digital camera if you just take a picture,
look at the preview and then take another with different settings if
you don't like that one.
Steve
Paul Furman
It would make a whirring sound if a mechanical shutter was involved,
mine doesn't & I've never heard of one that does. This just occurred to
me because the Nikon D70 had an electronic shutter which was used at
high shutter speeds but these new models do not mention any electronic
shutter features though they must have it to do live view. Live view has
the aperture stopped down so you can see the DOF previewed properly. It
sounds like maybe the G1 previews wide open by default?
David J. Littleboy
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> Live view has the aperture stopped down so you can see the DOF previewed
> properly.
Seeing the DoF properly is a nice idea, but I find it grossly overrated.
Part of that is that I assume that people will walk up to my prints for a
closer look. So my DoF requirements are much stricter than the appearance on
a low-resolution screen (both ground glass and LCD/EVF screens are way lower
resolution than the cameras). Hand someone an 8x10 print, and they'll put
their nose on it if there's something of interest there. Of course, for
600x800 or smaller web images...
> It sounds like maybe the G1 previews wide open by default?
That would be good. Manual focus in live view is a bear if the aperture is
stopped down.
The Sony F707 in AF mode would open up the aperture to focus and then stop
down again. But if one tried to use the manual focus function for, say,
macros, it left you stopped down and unable to place the center of the DoF
band accurately. Yuck.
Of course, it's hard to leave the aperture open all the time, since it would
grossly overexpose the sensor much of the time.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Steve
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:13:02 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:
Yours probably also gives a continious view, just delayed more and
more as the shutter slows down. This G1 apparently does not. If they
used an electronic shutter, it could.
>me because the Nikon D70 had an electronic shutter which was used at
>high shutter speeds but these new models do not mention any electronic
>shutter features though they must have it to do live view. Live view has
>the aperture stopped down so you can see the DOF previewed properly. It
>sounds like maybe the G1 previews wide open by default?
Yes, that's what it looks like. Wide open preview by default and you
can stop it down both in aperature and speed with some button presses.
Steve
Paul Furman
The D70 had 1/500 flash synch, the D700 and I assume D300 only goes to
1/250, which sounds like maybe they just didn't bother implementing this
on the D700??? Both go to 1/8000 without flash (faster than some models
I thought). I'm not clear on a lot of this so don't assume I know what
I'm talking about <g> more like I'm asking questions...