Panasonic firms up pricing for Lumix DMC-G1 mini-DSLR for mid-November launch

We had it on good authority that Panasonic's Micro Four Thirds debut, the Lumix DMC-G1, was tracking for a November release at $799, and Panasonic USA just dropped some PR to exactly that effect. We'd prefer an exact calendar date to Panny's vague "mid-November" timeframe, but we're sure we'll live. Alongside the camera Panasonic will be launching the Lumix G Vario 45-200mm / F4.0-5.6 / MEGA O.I.S. telephoto Micro Four Thirds lens for $350. Panasonic's also still chatting up a G1 followup for 2009 that will include HD video capabilities, which probably should've made it into round one if you ask us.

[bernie16wb @ Oct 16th 2008 12:43PM]

So what would be the advantages of this over something like the D40 which is cheaper? Besides being smaller that is?

[JohnTitor @ Oct 16th 2008 12:50PM]

that it's smaller

[White @ Oct 16th 2008 12:55PM]

IT IS RED!!!!!!11

doh

[Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Oct 16th 2008 1:01PM]

At the price point - $799 - there are no advantages. For the money, you can get on eBay couple of D40s with some free lenses from ex-owners.

[Yem @ Oct 16th 2008 1:02PM]

It has image stabilization and lacks SLR mirror-slap.

[bebop @ Oct 16th 2008 1:04PM]

It's not going to stay at $799. Won't be long before it's in line with the E-4x0 series from Olympus, its direct dSLR competitor really. The G1 is perhaps more attractive as a travel camera, but personally - having used both the FZ2 and LC1 from Panasonic - I could never go back to an EVF.

[Temple @ Oct 16th 2008 1:19PM]

Aside from the size being the obvious benefit, also having a physical lens should also allow for larger aperture lenses (f-number is a ratio calculated entrance pupil in terms of the focal length). But there are others. . .

The G1 is essentially a Live-view camera with an electronic-view finer (EVF) and ultra-fast contrast detection AF. At this point its still vague to its real capabilities since it hasn't been reviewed yet, but theoretically, the EVF that should offer some advantages over an optical-view finder. First off, the G1's EVF does 180fps (60fps for each RGB), so it should be smoother then other EVFs on the market (but inferior to a OVF), however, this EVF should be dramatically brighter and larger then then the view-finder on the most cameras. In fact, the G1 has a 1.4x magnification for the viewfinder and is artificially back-lit, an OVF pentaprism has to lit only by light coming through the camera. Also, the lack of the mirror-box should allow for every silent shooting.

Panasonic has claims to have develop a fast contrast-based AF, hitherto, phase-detection AF has been vastly superior. Panasonic claims a focus-speed of 0.3-0.4 seconds, which makes on par with the better dSLRs, atop that, the AF will have 23-points with metering in 144-zone pattern. This compares favorably to the 3-point AF that the D40/D60 uses, or the ubiquitous 9-point AF in Canon cameras up to the 5DMkII. Also, being that the whole sensor is AF-capable, the G1's AF does fancy tricks like follow the subject through the frame (for instance if would be able to lock on to a marathon-runner and be able to follow him wherever he goes in the frame).

But the real test of these supposed benefits will have to be tested when the camera finally arrives.

[christian @ Oct 16th 2008 4:22PM]

@Temple:

Just a little challenge, I think the f/# refers to the diameter of the aperture relative to the diameter of the lens. So f/1 would be no iris. f/10 is an aperture 1/10th the diameter of the lens.

[strider_mt2k @ Oct 16th 2008 12:50PM]

Do they have it in re....well apparently they do.

[Grant @ Oct 16th 2008 12:57PM]

Panasonic's website does not indicate what the video format is. It implies that the video is stored as JPEG stills. If this were the case, than the feature to record 1080P is garbage. If it recorded in h.264 this would be the camera of my dreams.

[olly @ Oct 16th 2008 1:03PM]

Actually, it doesn't do video at all...

[YpoCaramel @ Oct 16th 2008 1:01PM]

I don't understand what this obsession is with video in a photographer's camera.

[Stefan @ Oct 16th 2008 1:14PM]

It's pretty easy , it's like having the choice between a bagel , or a bagel with cream cheeze .

Don't you like cream cheeze ?

[holycow @ Oct 16th 2008 1:23PM]

Cream CheeSe is delicious... dunno about this Cheeze you talk about...

[Michael Scrip @ Oct 16th 2008 1:29PM]

First of all, this is not a photographers camera. It is not even a DSLR, because it doesn't have a mirror assembly. It may have a big sensor, but you gotta use Live View and look at the screen.

Second, why not have video? The video that comes out of a DSLR... with it's amazing low-light capability, and interchangeable lenses... is awesome. Let's say you have a DSLR, but you might wanna grab some video clips too. Do you carry a POS Flip Video, or carry a dedicated camcorder too? This will do it all in one.

And you don't have to use it for video. They didn't remove features to add video to their DSLR. It's just a bonus.

[sygyzy @ Oct 16th 2008 1:51PM]

Me either!

[Michael @ Oct 16th 2008 2:03PM]

How can somebody be into photography and not video? Or vice versa. I never got that. Some people are just strange.

[Bob S. @ Oct 16th 2008 3:04PM]

The same way someone could be into flamenco but not into opera. They're two very different disciplines. (And I happen to be into both still photography and video myself. But the fact that you look at both with your eyes or create both through lenses doesn't make them equvalent.)

And yes, I also find the inclusion overrated. I mean, it's one of those checklist things that reviewers look for, so manufacturers include video. But anyone who wants to shoot real video is going to have a real video camera. Shooting grandma's 90th birthday in HD doesn't make you Spielberg. Nikon's D90 is so taxed (especially overheated) by HD that it can shoot only five minutes, while it can do 20 minutes of VGA.

[Michael Scrip @ Oct 16th 2008 7:33PM]

> "But anyone who wants to shoot real video is going to have a real video camera."

You're right. That's why the D90 is not a video camera, and you shouldn't buy it for that reason.

But anyone who wants to shoot a couple of short clips with their D90 will be able to. And even if a D90 owner never thought about video, maybe they will now. Cell phones have video cameras too... do ya hate those too?

And, to be honest, watching 20 or even 5 minutes of any one thing is boring. We're in the YouTube generation. Short is key.

[NHAnimator @ Oct 16th 2008 1:23PM]

One word about the color: Sessy.

[Brent @ Oct 16th 2008 1:40PM]

G1, eh? Is this the google camera we've heard so much about?

[lljasenll @ Oct 16th 2008 2:02PM]

comes in blue and black. the blue looks modern and semi-stealthy

[Rusty @ Oct 16th 2008 2:31PM]

Sorry, at that price point, I'll switch to a "true" DSLR. Everyone was hoping this would be sort of a replacement for a super-zoom camera, but the price point it too high. If I am spending well over 1000.00,
I'd just as soon go a head and buy a "ture" DSLR.

[Marino @ Oct 16th 2008 3:07PM]

There is no advantage to a "true" DSLR. (Digital Single Lens Reflex)
Having a mirror between the lens and the sensor is not an advantage. It's a disadvantage.
But there are cameras with fixed lenses and cameras with interchangeable lenses often called SLRs cause they all used mirrors.

The Panasonic G1 is the first digital camera with interchangeable lenses that doesn't have a mirror between the lens and the sensor. That's the technological feat. IMHO that's a good thing. Is G1 a good camera? We don't know yet.

[jorvay @ Oct 16th 2008 3:11PM]

Fair enough. Just keep in mind that there are those of us who want nothing to do with all that delicate mechanical equipment in an SLR. I grew up in a house with a dark room and a multitude of compact and full-frame SLRs and other formats. The only things that ever went wrong with them were related to the SLR mechanism. If I can get pretty-much all the functionality of a dSLR without it actually being dSLR, then I'm in! The more compact body size is just a bonus.

Right now my camera of choice is a Lumix FZ-50, and if the reviews on this are as good as they have been for the FZ50, then I'd be tempted...very tempted.

[Za @ Oct 16th 2008 9:01PM]

Marino, although I understand you in spirit, your assertion is incorrect. There have been interchangeable lens digital cameras without a mirror assembly. They are called "rangefinders". The Leica M8 is an example, and perhaps the only popular one, but it definitely is a non-SLR digital camera with interchangeable lenses.

[Fma @ Oct 16th 2008 2:51PM]

It does not look much smaller than a D40, lighter yes, but not
smaller. So what is the advantage?

I'm looking forward to reviews. I'm in the market for something like
a Canon G9/G10, D40, etc for a bang around camera. I need something
for when I don't want to risk the expensive stuff and don't want to
mimic Mr. BlurryCam with a point and shoot that lacks control.

[jorvay @ Oct 16th 2008 3:18PM]

This could be a great camera for you as a 'bang-around' camera. No mirror/prism component means no fragile moving parts. If you've already got a pro dSLR, this might be the perfect design for you. Of course, Olympus also has a micro four-thirds dSLR-equivalent in the works. So if you're willing to wait, you might have even more options.

[Christian Ritchie @ Oct 16th 2008 4:34PM]

I think I'll go with Canon or Nikon, thanks.

[Za @ Oct 16th 2008 9:04PM]

Okay, that's great. I shoot Pentax and love it. The fact is that each will have a preference, but the fact that you say "Canon or Nikon" shows that you definitely do not own an SLR and likely will buy for the wrong reasons. If you owned one, you'd say either "Canon" or "Nikon", since you would be locked into one or the other.

It just seems to me that all that matters to you is the name on the bloody camera. I know people who will take shit pictures with a $5000 camera and I know people who can take pictures with a run-of-the-mill point and shoot that should [and sometimes is] hanging in a gallery.

You seem to have been caught up in the marketing; I think you would have more credibility after actually seeing example photos from this camera. Otherwise, you're just a Canikon fanboy.

[Liam @ Oct 16th 2008 5:46PM]

Use an SLR for more technically demanding photography. Use a compact when you can't justify the bulk/cost. Where does this fit in?

[Za @ Oct 16th 2008 9:11PM]

It allows you to use Live View natively. This can be useful in many situations. For one, if you are shooting in a dark environment, the EVFs can actually brighten what you are looking at so you can see what you are shooting. I was in DC the other night and this would have been really helpful. With an optical viewfinder, if it's dark, it's dark. The sensor is capable of taking in much more light than the human eye is, so the EVF would allow greater flexibility in this regard. Another advantage is the possibility of quicker shot-to-shot with no mirror black out. When you shoot with an SLR, when the mirror actually flips out of the way, you cannot see your subject. This is disconcerting when you are shooting movement. It would be easier, as in a rangefinder, if you could continue to see your subject while taking the shot.

The G1 is a poor example, but the Micro 4/3rds format allows for *significantly* smaller bodies. Significantly smaller. We are talking cameras with 4/3 sensors in a body about the same size as a Canon G9. This is a first generation product so it's somewhat unfair to compare it to what the future will bring. Furthermore, the removal of the mirror assembly will allow video...which will be incredible.

Any idiot that has been saying, "for video, buy a video camera" has no clue with regards to cinematography. If someone can find me a digital camcorder that allows interchangeable lenses and as shallow a depth of field as something like this technology could conceivably do, for under $3000, I would buy it. The closest thing to that right now is...surprise, surprise...another SLR - the Canon EOS 5D Mk. II.

[StalematE @ Oct 16th 2008 6:35PM]

can i get the camera in cornflower blue?

[kxde @ Oct 17th 2008 9:35AM]

Photography is a hobby for me, I don't make a living out of it. Around 2005-2006 I bought a Canon A610 compact camera and after using it for 4-6 months I wanted another camera capable of better picture quality. So I tried to find something similar with the A610 but with a bigger sensor and guess what, there was none. Soon after I discovered that if you wish to have better picture quality and performance you're forced to buy a dSLR. Okay then, let's try a dSLR! So I got my hands on a Nikon D40 and let me tell you... I wasn't impressed at all. More like disappointed. Sure, it's a bit faster than my A610 and I can shoot at higher ISO but that's about it.

No LiveView? What the hell...? I don't use the VF, I'm used to take pictures looking at the LCD. Major let down. No vari-angle LCD? I'm not that tall and because of this many times I have to keep the camera above my head with the LCD angled down. No Movie Mode? I use this feature ~10% of the time, making small videos at parties & stuff, really useful for me. Also it has a somehow awkward interface, its pretty big compared to my compact, no Image Stabilization tech and more importantly I wasn't blown away by the image quality of the D40. You see, I was prepared to give up on many features if the picture quality was impressive. Well, it wasn't.

Anyway, to make a long story short: I'm the type of guy who just wants a bloody compact camera with a bigger sensor in it. I don't want to spend thousand of $ on lenses, filters, tripods and so on. At the same time I demand a certain level of quality from my camera which, unfortunately, no compact is able to offer me. I've been spoiled with vari-angle LCD, Movie Mode and LiveView and as far as I know no dSLR has all of these.

And now comes the G1 which looks almost perfect for people like me except... there is no movie mode. Panasonic... WTF?

[Adam @ Oct 22nd 2008 8:58AM]

dude, if you say the image quality of the D40 is bad, then you are a poor photographer. A compact camera and a DSLR is 2 different camera types, there is no bigger sensor for a compact camera. Take higher ISO, thats really important, a compact camera can only use at ISO100, above ISO, the picture look very poor and grainy.

DSLR users usually don't use LiveView, they use viewfinder, more accurate. Again a DSLR is not a point and shoot camera, its meant to take photographs, you clearly don't understand the use of a DSLR.

Im hinting that you were using the Auto mode in the DSLR, even that I still use my PnS, I use it in full manual mode, and I will usually get better photos then my friend more advance point and shoot (they are using auto mode). Again its not about the camera features, the camera features only useful if you use them and if you are planning to use them. You, clearly do not try playing with the camera settings and features thats why you get poor quality photos.

I've seen many pictures taken by the D40 and most of them look great. Much better then and PnS will be able to take.