Panasonic DMC-GH1 handled on video, coming to North America in May
By Darren Murph 
posted March 31st 2009 4:19PM
posted March 31st 2009 4:19PM
[Thanks, Jive]
posted March 31st 2009 4:19PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
What a nice toy!
nice enough and I'll definitely buy one...
however when he goes on in the video about rolling back the aperture to 2.8 - it's a bit disingenuous when both the kit lenses they are talking about only open to f4.0.
sure - there are 4/3rds lenses that are faster than that...but they are not zooms - nor was that the context of the conversation.
Nick
Good point Nick.
Heard that as well and thought...f/2.8...where did that come from.
However, kudos to Panasonic, they did a quality product here.
Light & small, changeable lenses, auto focus movie mode (30p for 720 and 24p for 1080) is really not bad at all.
I owned a Nikon D90, great still but not usable video unfortunately. Will try this one when available.
Jack
There are at least a couple 4:3 zoom lenses that open up to f2.
Would this camera (in addition to a microphone) be a viable tool to shoot films with?
I don't see why not.
If it functions as advertised, then definitely Yes. The image quality will be good - not great, due to the level of compression imposed - and the degree of manual control along with the size of the lens will deliver a high degree of photographic quality.
It's not 'The Best' in every area; Panasonic's goal is apparently to deliver sufficient quality while giving the owner as much control as possible. The control matters because consistency and repeatability are big factors in production and post scheduling; otherwise you have to 'start over' with your camera and editing settings for every single shot, and that gets very time-consuming. You should base your final decision on how you react to the quality of raw footage that you'll be able to download after the camera comes out. If it meets your standards for color, sharpness, latitude etc. then I think you'll find it very nice to shoot with. If not, there are many worthy competitors in the pipeline.
I have an older point-and-shoot Lumix which just does SD video and I've been very happy with how good and flexible it is for the price. This one looks extremely attractive to me, and I've worked with everything from 35mm film on down to tiny covert cameras. I'm not affiliated with any manufacturers, by the way.
Question. Is there really a lens conversion factor for the above zoom lens? With a micro 4/3's sensor is it as hard to produce a true 14mm wide angle as it is for say a full frame DSLR? Does this zoom on this camera actually have the same field of view at 14mm as a true ultra wide angle 14mm lens on a Full Frame body? Or, is it actually the same field of view as a 28mm on the wide end, hence the conversion factor? I know that the Canon EF-S and Nikon DX lenses have no conversion factor on APS-C bodies so why does the lens above have one on a micro 4/3's body? Is it just to relate what the lens would be on a 35mm? Does it actually have a 14mm-140mm field of view on a micro 4/3's body?
Focal lengths are always given with respect to the focal lenghts they would have on a 35mm cam.So you always have to multiply it by a factor that depends on the sensor size. For 4/3 this is factor 2, for the small Nikon and Canon it is around 1.5 and for the full size sensors like in the Nikon D3 or EOS 1Ds it is 1. So if you like tele lenses, 4/3 is great for you. For wide angel it is the worst you can buy
There is a conversion factor of 2.0x compared to the conversion factor of 1.6x with the Canon APS-C cameras. Which means that the 7-14mm will be equivalent to 14-28mm for the m4/3ds and the 14-140 mm will be 28-280mm. And, Nikon and Canon do have a conversion factor for their cropped lenses.
The focal length is a physical measure. It doesn't change based on the sensor size. So a 35mm Nikon DX lens, for example, produces exactly the same FOV on a DX camera as a none DX 35mm lens.
Now 135 film was the most widely used standard in the film days. So for convenience's sake we use "crop factors" to compare what focal length is needed to produce a similar FOV. (µ)4:3 has roughly a 2x crop factor. Which means that the range of this lens is roughly equivalent to 28-560mm.
*the last part of the first paragraph should say "non-DX 35mm lens."
*and also I meant 28-280
Thanks for the replies. Couple more questions. I understand crop factors, but if the focal length of this lens is not actually 14-140 but 28-560mm then why not sell it as that? Finally, if I the were to use the above lens at 14mm on Micro 4/3's body and I also had a Full Frame DSLR with a 14mm (and assuming the sensor aspect ratios are the same); would I see the same image in both viewfinders?
oops I meant 28-280 as well...
>>. I understand crop factors, but if the focal length of this lens is not actually 14-140 but 28-560mm then why not sell it as that?
Focal length of a lens is equal to the distance between the image plane and the aperture, and its a real form of measurement. Converting everything to be equivalent for 35mm film is arbitrary. Its like saying my engine is 100hp but if I put it in a Honda Civic it'll 'feels' like it has 120hp. Also, the "f" value is a ratio of the focal length, and by converting it to some other point-of-reference, the value will make no sense.
By in large, most dSLR cameras these days are APS-C size anyway, and most younger people have never experienced 'full-frame'. Also, "full-frame' is also arbitrary anyways, if you're using medium-format film (or digital sensor), 'full-frame' is an entirely different.
Because it's NOT a 28-280 lens. The focal length is in fact only 14-140mm. Okay, focal length can basically be defined as the distance between the lens and the point at which light converges. Eg:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Focal-length.svg
Of course a modern camera "lens" is actually a collection of optical elements. So focal length is more of a principle.
A 14mm lens on a 135 full frame camera would be considerably wider than on a (µ)4:3.
By Full Frame I was referring to full frame 35mm DLSR's ie. 5D, 5D MKII, 1DS MKII, D700, D3X, or, A900. I am unsure if the last three are the same aspect ratio of the Canons. I am unsure if the last three are the same aspect ratio of the Canons. I was taught that focal length was the distance from the film plane/sensor to the lens when focused at infinity. So my question remains. At 14mm would the above lens on a Micro 4/3's body and lets say a Canon 14mm lens on a 5D MK II see the same image if the aspect ratios of the sensors are the same?
Plothole you answered my original question. So the lens is an actual 14-140, but when referring to it in 35mm equivalent it is 28-280. I always thought that with smaller sensors would finally allow true ultra wide angles on small sensor cameras. The first digital camera I ever shot with was the Canon D30, not 30D, all the EF lenses but the ULTRA wides worked great due to the crop factor. The micro 4/3's system is very intriguing to me especially the 7-14mm. Thanks for all the info.
You need to go back to a textbook and read up on what "focal length" of a lens actually is. There's no mystery to it. The only mystery is a bunch of schmucks that are so used to the focal length being based on a 35mm film, and being incapable of using any other lens ratings for other film/sensor sizes, hence everything is given in "35mm-equivalent" ratings.
TUX is absolutely wrong when saying that 2x crop cameras are "for wide angel is the worst you can buy". It is just as easy to make a 7mm lens for a 2x crop camera as it is to make a 14mm lens for a full-frame (in fact, the lens will be identical, but will be exactly one half the size). And olympus gladly makes those 7mm lenses. It's no diffirent than P&S cameras, that have focal lengths of 3mm, because their sensors are so small. There's no theoretical limitation based around the sensor size and how wide angle of a lens you can make.
XR: The wide-angle lenses (what you call "wide-angle" with respect to 35mm film), became normal lenses when you used them on your crop 1.6 cameras (like the d30). So on a camera system where the lenses are interchangeable between two different sensor sizes, it used to be difficult to find wide-angle lenses for the crop sensors. It's not a mechanical limitation, there's no optical limitation (a little bit, because the lens is already a fixed length away from the sensor), it's simply a case of availability of the lenses. It's no longer a problem, but if you want wide angle, you have to get either ultra-wide lenses for 35mm, or lenses that are specifically designed for crop sensors.
Shouldn't that be 14-140 mm in four thirds terminology which translates to 28-280 mm in full frame numbers (because of the 2x conversion factor for the format?
too bad that is still expensive, no way i'll buy it
at least i hope that once released his brother G1 gets his price down
What is on the TV behind him?
Sample/marketing footage. What else.
"...continual autofocus while shooting, on-the-fly aperture switching..."
I wish some of the gadget bloggers would learn something about using a camera instead of randomly grabbing factoids about it.
Continual autofocus is handy in some circumstances but you already have that on most consumer camcorders at a much lower price - unlike the fine grained manual focus offered by this and similar cameras. On-the-fly aperture switching is something most users shooting video immediately want to switch off, because while it's great for still pictures it looks awful and amateurish on video. The inability to manually set and retain these parameters is one of the shortcomings of current competitors from Nikon and Canon.
While I'm at it, perhaps we can lay to rest the silly notion that 30 frames per second is the ideal shooting speed and 24 fps is somehow a failure. 30 fps lets you go straight to TV in NTSC countries and looks better for things like sports and news subjects. But 24 fps is highly desirable for shooting any kind of creative subject matter (which is why movies are predominantly shot at this speed). Additionally, it's trivial to convert from 24 fps for TV playback, while getting 30 fps footage to look filmic is a dreadful pain in the ass. Meantime, shooters in countries with PAL TV require the ability to shoot at 25 fps; if this isn't available, 24 fps is the next best option.
The technical point of comparison for these new video-capable still cameras is not sub-$1000 camcorders aimed at the domestic market, but prosumer camcorders in the $2-5000 range aimed at indie filmmakers and documentarians because they offer comprehensive manual control as well as excellent image quality.
I really think Panasonic is heading in the wrong direction. This idea of a completely interchangeable lens format is great, but the small sensor size is a big problem. The Micro Four Thirds format really hinders what a photographer can do with depth of field. The following article does an excellent job explaining how sensor size effects images.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
Plus for that price, you could get a better camera with several accessories and produce much better images. There is a reason that the companies supplying the pros are increasing sensor size and not decreasing. This standard seems to be offering a slightly better than point and shoot camera and a premium price. Even Leica, arguably the biggest name using the standard, is pushing ahead with full frame cameras rather than cripple their cameras with the undersized sensor.
It was Leica that demonstrated the problems with a bigger sensor on a mirrorless body. The sensor in the M8 is actually about a 1.33x crop. Even then it needs special micro-lenses as well as software correction to compensate for the finicky nature of a digital sensor. Specifically that the pixels don't respond well when light is traveling at an extreme angle from the sensor.
Another thing is that a bigger sensor needs longer focal lengths to produce the same FOV. So the shorter register distance isn't as beneficial.
Dane - your comment on depth of field is valid, to an extent, but surely isn't the be-all-end-all for image quality. Olympus and Panasonic arguably make one of the sharpest lenses of any manufacturer (Oly 50mm macro), one of the widest angle lenses (Oly 7-14mm) and one of the smallest DSLRs (Oly e420 & G1). A Canon 5D Mk2 is the only other competitor re: 1080p video and it goes for $2,500.
When you look at the size and weight of a GH1 or e-series cameras + lenses, there is a long list of reasons to consider buying into the series. For many people, size matters - there is a willingness to sacrifice sensor size for a decrease in system size.
"Even Leica, arguably the biggest name using the standard, is pushing ahead with full frame cameras rather than cripple their cameras with the undersized sensor." --> People are still waiting for the M9 ...
4/3 sensor is NOT that much smaller than a 1.6 crop. In fact, it's 34mm vs 45mm, which is around 30%.... Which is NOTHING. If depth of field is what you're shooting for, then spending the money on the right lens (telephoto + large aperture) will get you a lot more of bokeh, then worrying about 30% decrease in sensor size. And most importantly, on the actual subject of photography, you'll get a lot more bokeh with the gh1 kit lens than you'll get with the canon rebel kit lens (simply because it goes to 140mm vs 55mm on the canon kit lens).
If you mentioned a comparison between 110mm film and 35mm film (because that's a 300% difference) I'd understand (and AGREE), but worrying about 30% will get you in grave faster. People don't understand the nature of what we perceive and the technology that is needed to get those gains.
It is the same thing with resolution. People don't understand that increase of pixel count by 400% only gives you apparent resolution increase of 2 times. Meaning that a 12mp camera can resolve ONLY TWICE as good as a 3mp camera (provided optics are the same). That humans perceive a difference in a logarithmic fashion. Going 35mph is pretty much the same as 30mph, but going 70mph is definitely faster. Going 80mph is the same as 70mph, but going 150mph is fundementally faster. Going 150mph or going 165mph is the same, but going 300mph is fundamentally faster... and so on...
Yet people, argue and argue about these small differences which are IRRELEVANT. It becomes a subject that is not about photography, this is some sort of mathematical masturbation that doesn't give you better pictures, doesn't give you more bokeh, doesn't give you more control over the image. It's just creepy fascination with minute numerical differences.
I'm torn. With this looking to be the top video-taking SLR type camera, the T1i just announced with a great price point/15mp sensor, and the time-worn D90; I really don't know which to buy. Bah
Well the D90 can create a very noticeable "jello" effect with fast moving objects because of its rolling shutter. So far Canon has handled this better, but the issue is still there to some degree on the 5D Mark II. Supposedly LiveMOS sensors use a global shutter, which would make them immune to this effect. But we'll have to wait and see how it really compares.
IMO, as a photographer, i can say this product will fail. The price point is too high. After all, when you can get a real camera like a D90, D300, 5D mk1, 40d, 50d, etc for this price range, this camera stands no chance. Also, with apparently a 2x crop factor, any hope of decent wide angle performance is shot to death! Lets not even get started on lack of lens selection, unproven performance, etc etc..HD video is not at all important to the vast majority of photographers, and people looking to shoot movies professionally will look elsewhere, a proper Canon HD video camera is less than $1000 more..
guaranteed epic fail, if panasonic wants to launch a new format, they need to start on a level people can afford and justify, and not try to hit the pro/semi pro market until they have a full system of equipment
There's NO SHORTAGE of wide-angle lenses for the 4/3 format. This fear of the "crop factor" comes from Canon and Nikon history, because their own lenses were meant for a 35mm film, and then they were getting "cropped" for the smaller sensors, thus the difficulty in achieving the wide angle. 4/3's format has wide angle lenses that were originally designed for the 4/3 sensor, there's no confusion. There's no "cropping" as so to speak, it's simply a different sensor and different lens format.
Lens selection is not too shabby for the 4/3 format. I'm not sure what "unproved" performance you're talking about (I think the only "unproved" aspect of this is your ignorance)
And 3rd. You're missing the point of a small camera with a relatively large sensor. I know a ton of people (myself included) that need a compromise camera (good sensor, less bulk). It's a different market, and very obviously, it's not you. But thank god the world doesn't revolve around your righteous nose.
The only downside here is price, and that's all you had to mention. It is a little pricey. Something on the order of 700-800 should have been a lot more appropriate.
The main thing I see is that the camera plus lens combo is not that small after all. The Oly 420/450 with the 50mm pancake might be smaller and thus more pocketable but the GH1 definitely is not. I would love to have a smaller camera to always carry around without sacrificing lens and picture quality. But small enough in that sense means like the DP2 or the G10 not the GH1 with that honking piece of glass.
Leica introduced the 35mm film format at a time when news reporters were lugging around 4x5's, and then Rolleis. When you say that the 4/3 digital format of Lumix GH1 is doomed to fail simply because of its smaller sensor, you need to also insist that the 35mm film format has historically failed! That would make your opinion highly credible.
@Yannis
The Pancake is 25mm (50 effective). And that same pancake can be used on the G1/'GH1 via the 4:3 adapter, making for a fairly small setup indeed. Or you can wait for the Panasonic 20m 1.7 pancake, which is specifically designed for µ4:3.
How many wide angle lenses are there that will work on this camera? The problem with wide angle performance is that you have to go extremely wide to get decent performance, hence the 7mm panasonic will be offering- the issue there is that you will get guaranteed fisheye with almost any wide angle that will work. Fisheye is not necessarily what everyone is going to be looking for. Pardon me if i am un-knowledged in the ways of panasonic, but will they not be using a unique lens mount like every other manufacturer? How many lenses are going to be available for this camera compared to say, a Canon 5D Mk2? How much will that Leica glass cost compared to Nikon/Sony glass? Is there any 3rd party support for this mounting system yet? If there is no crop factor, why is a 14-140mm equal to a 28-280mm according to the gentleman on the video? If there was no crop factor, a 14-140 would be 14-140.
I believe I said " Unproven" performance, and yes, this camera is brand new, new sensor, body, lens system, etc etc, so it is as yet unproven. I mean, something has to actually be used by the public for a good while first and have lots of professional reviews before it is considered "proven", at least to me.
It isn't about being "righteous", it is about what makes sense to the end user. Sure a good compromise all around camera is a great idea, but people looking for that aren't looking to drop $1500+ are not looking for a "all around compromise" camera. The fact of the matter is, you can buy something like a D90 or Canon T1i AND a decent HD camcorder for that amount of money. The Nikons and Canons will of course also have more lens choice than anything else out there.
Lastly, I agree, a price point of $899 or less is appropriate for this.
My point was that the GH1 is doomed to fail because of the price point, not because of the sensor.
"Going 35mph is pretty much the same as 30mph, but going 70mph is definitely faster. Going 80mph is the same as 70mph, but going 150mph is fundementally faster. Going 150mph or going 165mph is the same, but going 300mph is fundamentally faster... and so on..."
That is such an incredibly bad analogy it is almost not even worth reading. You account for no variances in vehicle ( or camera ), i assure you, going 150 vs 165 feels nothing alike in most vehicles, if you doubt me, go do it. Going 35 feels way different than going 30 if you're on a motorcycle or scooter or convertible,going 60mph in one vehicle feels drastically different than going 60mph in another ( say a honda civic vs a bmw m3 ) etc etc..just a bad analogy, but that is a nitpick. You argue that the small differences are irrelevant, but you make no account for the intended use of the item. Sure, for someone out in the yard taking pics of their golden retreiver, that mentioned difference very well may be irrelevant, for someone working on high end studio phtotography? likely not..
Ugh.
First of all, Olympus/Panasonic lenses kick the sh!t out of any other brand lenses in general. Period. At their sharpest wide open, edge-to-edge. Don't believe me? Go look up the 7-14mm, 14-35mm, 35-100mm, etc etc. It makes Canon "L" glass look like a joke. How people can spend >>$1000 on a lens that isn't sharp in the corners is beyond me. Must be that red ring...
Besides that, as mentioned, sensor size has nothing to do with the difficulty to make wide-angle lenses. The 7-14mm Oly/Panasonic lenses are 14-28mm wide (yes, there's a 2.0 "crop factor"). At 14mm, the Oly lens has 2.34% barrel distortion... practically none. You call that a Fisheye? I don't think so...
Yes, it's expensive. However, the only Canon lens that's equivalent is the Canon EF 28-300mm F3.5-5.6L IS USM, at $2000+. The Canon EF 28-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS is $500+, and it's missing half the long end.
Considering you get a very good quality still camera (see the G1 reviews), a true "do it all" lens with IS, a VERY small camera, and the ability to capture video better than any other DSLR (and MANY video cameras out there), I'd say it's worth it.
To me, the biggest plus is the ability control DoF. This makes video on the 5Dmk2 look like a checkbox feature (which it is...)
From here:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/OlympusE714mm/page6.shtml
The Olympus ZUIKO DIGITAL 7-14mm is without a doubt an extremely impressive lens. Not only does it offer noticeably wider coverage than any other ultra-wide zoom on the market, it also features highly-corrected optics.
As our results pages show, the 7-14mm exhibits virtually no geometric distortion, impressively low vignetting considering its extreme coverage, and is sharp in the corners throughout its focal range. It's also very well-built and designed to stand-up to professional use. There's admittedly some coloured fringing in the extreme corners at wide angle, but otherwise no other technical aspect we can fault it on.
If it were true that a short focal length is automatically a fisheye, than practically all compact lenses would be this way. Afterall their sensors are a mere fraction the size of 4:3, which means they need even shorter lengths for a given FOV.
The Japanese model is on ebay and craigslist (LA) now. Search for "GH1".