Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1 goes up for pre-order, for $1,499
By Donald Melanson 
posted May 5th 2009 3:32PM
posted May 5th 2009 3:32PM
Panasonic's Lumix DMC-GH1 certainly has a lot going for it. It's smaller than a DSLR, boasts some interchangeable lenses, and it's apparently more than up to the task when it comes to shooting video. Unfortunately, all of that doesn't come cheap, with the camera now up for pre-order from J&R for the not so low price of $1,499.99, which puts it well above a number of more-than-capable DSLRs. Of course, that price does include a 14-140mm lens, and it could come down slightly once some other retailers get in on the discounting action, but it's pretty clear that anyone simply looking for a low-cost alternative to a DSLR (or a low-cost DSLR, for that matter) will want to look elsewhere.
[Via Crave]
[Via Crave]
I think I need a govt. bailout to pay for this one....dang
I can get this for about 300 bucks cheaper a with corporate discount but that's still a tad too high.
Camera uses a 2x crop factor so in 35mm format it's actually a 28mm-280mm
And I bet a LOT of that $1500 is that stabilized lens. The lens will probably sell for $500...
Richard, I've been trying to find that lens for over a year for my Olympus SLR. I located it a few months ago selling for $1200. At $1500, the camera body is practically a giveaway.
Ouch. I was really hoping for something closer to $1100-1200. This isn't even competitive with Canon's X0D series at this price point, much less the Rebel or Nikon's prosumers.
Good price.....................for..whom?
if it's at J&R, of course it's overpriced. but this means it's going to be expensive even at regular retailers.
that's really too bad, as i had finally convinced myself that this was a better choice than the D90 (or the D5000 or T1i)
well, now it's settled. i'm getting a D90.
Yeah, I mean, I think the micro 4/3 form factor is a good idea, but this body just doesn't look much smaller than other DSLRs, and then you end up with a big honkin' lens..
The D90 is about 300 dollars less, but for that price difference you're compromising a lot by getting it.
1. GH1 has a mic input, and a custom mic that fits into the hot shoe (sold separately), but you don't have to worry about syncing in post from a separate audio source if you want good sound
2. 1080p
3. 720/60fps! Have you seen the slow mo footage this thing can shoot? D90 can only do 720, so no great slo mo
http://vimeo.com/4441911
4. smaller/lighter, compatible with canon and Nikon lenses with adapter
5. No rolling shutter in 720/60, 1080 has just the slightest amount of jello when whip panning. The d90 goes jello-vision with the slightest amount of handheld panning
http://vimeo.com/4438472
6. better color saturation
http://vimeo.com/4487113
7. Aliasing only visible under a microscope
8. No time limit on recording
Those were enough reasons to sell my D90 after I was fed up with the ever-present rolling shutter, crappy mono sound and no mic input, horrible aliasing and bad compression. For three hundred more, this is a steal. Check your local craigslist and see how many people are dumping their d90's right now.
Sorry, point 3 should have said D90 can only do 720/24fps. which by the way is a big selling point of the HVX's
Jeeze, I forgot to of the biggest reasons to get a GH1 over the D90: MANUAL CONTROL IN VIDEO MODE (the D90 is automatic, so you control nothing), and AUTOFOCUS IN VIDEO MODE (D90 is manual focus only), which also has face detection which reportedly works great
Ok, I think I'm done. Too many reasons, honestly.
@malkmus The D90 is a digital camera, not a HD camcorder. The video 'feature' in it shouldn't be the reason you buy this camera or not.
Actually, keith, it's both a digital camera and an HD camcorder. And if you're only interested in taking good pictures, then yes, there's absolutely no reason to buy this camera, and instead compare the G1 to the D90. But the video mode is the only thing people interested in buying this camera are concerned about, and taking photos with it is actually secondary. I would say the primary interest in the GH1 is video, since that's what separates it from the G1. It's also quite clear that the reason Panasonic included all the features I mentioned was to rival the D90's crippled video. So, I think it's fair to say that video is the main appeal of this camera and people comparing it to stills-only cameras are misleading in their comparisons. Obviously, for the money, there are better options if stills are your only focus.
In a couple months the price will be down enough where this become a a desirable choice. For now though I can buy a 5D cheaper than that on craigslist.
I imagine if you shop around a bit and wait awhile you'll be able to find it at a decent price.
The regular G1 was pretty outrageous too and I got mine for entry level DSLR price.
Doesn't seem worth it to me. For much less money you can get a compact DSLR with a much bigger sensor and a much wider range of lenses from Canon, Nikon, or Sony. The sacrifices with a smaller sensor are enormous - low resolution, loss of detail, bad high-ISO performance. Is it worth trading all of that for the more compact formfactor of the micro 4/3 system? Not to mention, at that price range one can even get something like the Nikon D300, which is every bit a professional camera (except for perhaps the DX sensor). People who go for DSLRs are already putting quality first and size second, so a camera like this doesn't seem to strike the right balance between quality, size, and price.
well, all the samples ive seen look pretty damn good (philip bloom and all that). so while i have a Canon and I'd like to stay Canon, I could be persuaded to make this my prime walkabout camera.
of course, if youre a pixel peeper/negative nelly, nothing will ever be good enough for you except a Red or something. and people who have money for a Red certainly dont spend their time cruising engadget looking for opportunities to be wet blankets.
and while D300 really, truly does it for me in the trouser department, if i got this camera it would be for the movie capabilities. and in that capacity, the D300 facepalms itself. And even if the 5D mkII can swing it, this puppy is much smaller.
AlexL - I have to take issue with some (but not all) of your criticisms of the micro 4/3 sensor. You said "low resolution" (versus a crop sensor from Can/Nik) - but the 4/3 sensor shoots at 12MP in this cam, and would be the same resolution as any 12MP Nikon. True, it's not the 15mp of the newer Canon offerings, but I don't think resolution beyond 8-10MP is actually a benefit anyway.
Also, could you explain what you mean by "loss of detail" due to the 4/3 sensor? I have only an Oly E-510, and it's every bit as detailed as any full frame cam if we're talking about a shot taken under similar circumstances. You're totally right that the higher-iso performance suffers, that's a significant limitation, but I don't think that detail (do you mean sharpness?) is a problem for this sensor.
Still video is the secondary function of this camera. If you just want to shoot stills then the G1 is substantially cheaper, in line with the differences between the 4/3 sensors and the full-frame.
Richard,
By loss of detail I'm talking about optical constraints. Larger crop factors will require more lens resolving power to provide the same level of detail and sharpness. And you are right, smaller sensors don't necessarily have lower pixel resolution, it's more of a tradeoff between pixel density and noise, the less sacrifice on the resolution side, the more sacrifice on the high ISO performance side.
AlexL, If you ever bother to check 4/3 forums, you would see lots of people drooling over the Leica/Panay optics. It's very expensive - but it costs it's every penny. Provided you can afford one.
Also worth keeping in mind, that this is new optics and it is specifically designed for the sensor size. The combo has much less problems compared to 35mm film lens fitted on digital camera with 1.6/1.5 crop factor sensor.
I'm shooting right now with Oly's E-520 and ZD 12-60 (24-120 eq.) lens and to me pixel-peeper the combination leaves very little to complain about.
Dummy, your comment is completely unwarranted. Nowhere did I say that the lenses for the 4/3 system is inferior. I was only talking about the selection of lenses. After all, no matter how incredibly good your super expensive Leica wide angle lens is, it fails miserably for any telephoto situation. You want to talk about lenses specifically designed for a sensor size? Nikon has several times as many lenses specifically designed for the DX sensor than Panasonic has for micro-4/3. And even non-DX lenses can be mounted on DX cameras without needing any extra configuration. Whereas 4/3 lenses can't even be mounted on micro-4/3 cameras without a converter.
But the limitation with lens selection can be overcome with time. I don't think the current small selection is anything against the micro-4/3 standard in the long run. However there is a much bigger issue at hand with lenses and the 4/3 standard. You should realize that your incredibly expensive Leica lens is still subject to the same laws of optics as any other lens. The optics of the lenses only has so much resolving power. And when your sensor is of a certain size, there's only so much detail your optics can provide, no matter how many pixels you pack into that sensor. This is why a crappy lens fitted on a full-frame DSLR can often blow very expensive lenses fitted on cropped DSLRs out of the water in terms of picture detail and resolution.
I was looking forward to the release of the GH1 and was planning on purchasing one.
But for that price I can get a new DSLR AND a standalone Canon HD camcorder.
Bummer.
yes, and you can carry them both.
Neither of which will produce high-quality video. the DSLR won't shoot in HD, and the HD camcorder won't give you the benefit of a decent lens or sensor. If you want a still camera without video capabilities, Panasonic's offering is the substantially cheaper G1.
Neither Engadget nor most of the commenters here seem to have a clue about the price-performance ratio of this camera or what is significant about its feature set.
From a video perspective, the GH1 has so many things going for it: MANUAL CONTROLS, AF in video, incredible low-light performance, 24p, 60p, slow-mo capabilities, half the price, etc.
Look at the low-light capabilities in video, its 5DMKii level.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeCGmzV-010&fmt=22
http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/05/02/kauai-sunset-lumix-gh1-slow-motion/
I had pretty much decided I would be picking one of these up probably next fall.
Hopefully the price will be down to at least around 1 large by then.
Can't really see a reason to get this over the 5D Mark II...
I'm surprised at all the comments comparing this to the 5D Mk II and D300. This is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT idea. If you don't want to shoot ANY video, you will clearly get a larger lens selection, more MP, and better high-ISO performance from a $1500 Cannon or Nikon body.
That being said, there's no other DSLR-type camera that has video capabilities like this (actual continuous autofocus) and usable Live View shooting with CDAF. Those are the skills that will sell this camera, not hitting that ISO 3200 shot across the indoor gym.
Plus, have you actually seen the size of this thing compared to a 5D? If I were hiking, etc., I'd much rather get the GH1.
I'm not interested in this camera (I don't need its capabilites), but knocking it in a comparison with a 35mm FF body (that sells for almost $2k) just doesn't make sense to me. A Lotus Elise may be a far worse truck than an F-150, but that doesn't make it bad for what it is intended to do.
Ask your seeing eye dog for some help then.
It's become a comparison for me because of the price bracket.
If I am going to blow $1,500 on a camera, I may as well get the full frame, HD Video shooting one.
Erm... Price? The 5D Mk II is $2.5K for the body alone.
And how much will the 28-280mm lens cost for that 5D? Oh, and I assume it will do continuous autofocus and contrast-detect live view, right? ;-)
@Rog,
dont let it get to you. he cant afford to get either. just chalk the comments up to the lack of proper internal editing.
To the best of my knowledge, there are no 10x zooms for full frame. Such would be a pretty large lens to say the least.
And the problem with shooting video on a true dSLR, besides the AF issues, is that you can't use the viewfinder.
OK, so what is the BEST choice for the $1000-1200 DSLR-ish camera ($1200 price cap has to includes a nice zoom).
My vote goes for the D90....got one last week and couldn't be happier, awesome camera for the price, if you go refurb you can get it for about $1000 w/ kit lens or about $1450 w/ the awesome 18-200mm lens.
I still think that the Lumix FZ-28 is a great non-DSLR that is perfect for beginners since it still has a full manual mode and only costs about $300.
Sheez, that's a fuggeddaboutit price, and not at all where I hoped the Micro-Four-Thirds market was going to go.
I guess Panasonic's enjoying having the market all to themselves. Hey... I wonder if this price is actually intended to help tempt Olympus (the other MFT launch partner) away from the wall and out onto the dance floor?
Eddy
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Panay is strong second - after Olympus in 4/3 market.
u4/3 is in its infancy and it is hard to judge. And If Panay would continue producing exclusively such high-end optics with IS, I'm pretty sure that Olympus would be the #1 of u4/3 too.
Frankly I'm puzzled at Panay strategy. Having no cheap optics (to tap into entry-level prosumers) to complement their rather good bodies seems to be illogical. Especially considering that u4/3 has such a huge potential at entry level. Let's hope that Oly or Sigma would announce some good affordable optics for u4/3. But then one would loose IS, since both of them rely on IS inside body, while Panay puts IS into lenses... Still f***ed up picture for Panay u4/3 line up.
P.S. In contrast Olys produces now four lines of 4/3 dSLRs (from ~$300 to ~$1200) and 3 lines of 4/3 optics (from $pennies on ebay to $$$$).
Everybody who thought this thing was coming in at below $1500, is a fool.
The lens is specifically developed for movies. Panasonic has stated multiple times how hard it was to make the continuous diaphragm and the silent autofocus. And then the camera itself. Which has enough processing power to fix barrel distortion while filming, is very compact and has a newly developed sensor.
Also the fact that Panasonic knows this is a groundbreaking camera won't help the price.
$1500 including lens is a steal. Stop crying. If you want to cry, check the Canon 18-200 lens, which is so bad you won't know if the lack of sharpness is from your tears or from the shitty optics.
Remember, you will be able to get it cheaper - When the G1 came out, retail was $750, and now you can easily find it for $620. Plus once there are sales, it will drop down to at least 1,300, probably a little less before the end of the year.
Hang on, if this camera is primarily about shooting vid, then why the form factor?
I realise it is an extension to the G1, but still, it is a two handed affair?
This is no camcorder. With the larger sensor, and so larger optics, you would want to hold it two handed.
And also it isn't just for shooting video. More like 50/50 between that and still photography.
So the 4/3s sensor is small enough that it doesn't have the rolling shutter aka "jello vision" effect???
They haven't completely eliminated the rolling shutter. However the LiveMOS sensor technology seems to have a better handle on it than conventional CMOS sensors.
so what happens when you want to use a non OIS lens ?
Then you won't get image stabilization. Of course there are other ways to keep a camera steady.
Within a few months, you will see heavy discounting, since this camera will not sell at the price Panasonic is suggesting. canon and Nikon has this unit beat hands down for far less money right now -- wake up Panasonic and smell the coffee.