Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1 gets officially detailed, priced for US market
By Darren Murph 
posted May 6th 2009 12:22PM
posted May 6th 2009 12:22PM
posted May 6th 2009 12:22PM
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.
Want!
But I want a proper 4/3rd Oly more!
This is what I'm waiting for. That Oly rangefinder-esque Micro 4/3 prototype looks wonderful. Gimme that and a handful of pancake primes and I'll be lining up! I'm not at all interested in merely a miniaturized SLR.
You'll want it more when you see the video this thing produces, and the fact you can mount any lens via adapter (Leica, Nikon, Canon, etc) due to the short focal flange distance of the m43 system.
http://www.vimeo.com/groups/12592/videos/4441911
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t7xHgOHxl8&fmt=22
Amazing low-light:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeCGmzV-010&fmt=22
want!!!!(of course with a M mount converte(M lens also will be accepted)
@Pretol
Going by surface area, technically the 135 sensor is 3.56 times bigger. The whole 2x crop factor is a bit deceptive. It's based on the diagonal of a 135 film negative. The problem is that "full frame" is 3:2, while the Four-Thirds sensor is of course 4:3. If they had go with a sensor with the same surface area but with the more conventional shape, it would actually have been about a 1.88x crop factor IIRC.
Whoops.... that was supposed to go under the next post.
That's an awful lot of money for a crap lens. f/4.0? That's worse than most $200 pocket cameras.
You realize that f-stop isn't the only thing determining lens quality, right? This will blow any pocket camera out of your pocket, across the room, and into your neighbor's trash can.
It has a 35mm equivalent of a 28-280mm lens. This is comparable to the Nikon 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 DX lens that is $700-800 (and has a 35mm equivalent of 27-300mm) you can even mount that Nikon lens of this camera because the m43 can take pretty much any lens.
Moreover, this has smooth-silent focusing, which is important because in video you don't want the jerky AF and the sound of the motor intruding in your video. Current AF systems don't work very well in video anyways, which is the reason why neither Canon or Nikon has AF in video to begin with. Panasonic has obviously found an elegant solution by designing a cine-lens for video specifically.
This lens also has a continuously variable aperture, so you don't have to take steps between stops. This is important in video because you don't want to see a sudden change in exposure settings (as you would normally open-close the aperture) as the light in the scene changes.
Are you kidding? Canon makes an excellent line of f/4 Professional lenses for their L-series. Not only do they cost around a grand, they offer superb quality.
Theoretically, IS gives you a couple stops. It won't reduce motion blur or increase the bokeh, but it's better than non-IS.
I still think the camera is too expensive. I can't imagine paying that much for a sensor that small.
f/stop has nothing to do with lens quality. It's merely the aperture size divided by the focal length of the lens. Pocket cameras have such small f/stops because they have very sort focal lengths.
Here's why you're wrong (and why compareing f-stops on different size sensors cannot be done, but most people have no clue what an f-stop actually is) go here - http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm - for the full read.
To make the long story short... an f/4 on the four-thirds sensor is about the same amount of light as f/1.2 on point'n'shoot... So let me know which POS has a f/1.2 and then we'll talk...
The only POS camera that even comes close is LX3, and that's because it has a larger sensor, and a nice lens (and that's the best of the best as far as POS's go)... but the aperture area is still SMALLER than a f/4 on a four-thirds...
Moral of the story, f-stops are relative to the sensor size (just like focal length, but most people are used to converting them into 35mm equivalent)
Now you know.
@Pretol: Quoting that article:
"Just to be clear, is f/8 the same on my 20mm as it is on my 50?
"Yes. That's actually kind of the point. Through all these focal lengths, aperture areas and even film formats, the brightness of the illumination reaching the film plane or sensor is identical for any given f/stop."
i.e. the article directly contradicts what everyone here, including you, seems to be claiming: that an f/4.0 lens in this case is somehow magically as good at illuminating the sensor as (say) a cheap Sigma zoom that opens up to f/2.8 at the 28mm end, or the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, or even the lens Panasonic shipped with the DMC-G1.
Sorry, but Panasonic are doing the camera a disservice by bundling a kit lens that has a huge zoom range at the expense of horrible light transmission. But I guess that's what sells, which is why they replaced the lens they were bundling with the DMC-G1 for something slower but with more zoom range.
@Matthew
You have no clue what you're talking about. Kit lenses from Canon and Nikon are also 3.5-5.6, and usually there short focal distances (this lens gets an equivalent of 28-280mm and does video). Atop that, the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is a $1,000 lens.
There are many ways of looking at this, but it's simple geometry. There's no contradiction, you're misunderstanding what is being stated.
f/2 for 35mm sensor lets in 4 times the amount of light as does f/2 lens for a 17.5mm sensor. The sensor is also 4 times as big, so the LIGHT DENSITY IS THE SAME, but the amount of total light is still 4 times greater.
The whole point is that f-stop is a relative measurement, so it's a completely different scale for different size sensors.
@Pretol
Going by surface area, technically the 135 sensor is 3.56 times bigger. The whole 2x crop factor is a bit deceptive. It's based on the diagonal of a 135 film negative. The problem is that "full frame" is 3:2, while the Four-Thirds sensor is of course 4:3. If they had go with a sensor with the same surface area but with the more conventional shape, it would actually have been about a 1.88x crop factor IIRC.
@Plothole
You're going on a different tangent..
But I'll comment anyway :)
People tend to sweat over 3.5fps vs 3.0fps, 1.88 vs 2.00 crop, 12mp vs 10mp, etc. etc. when in reality there's even more variation between the same advertised measurements from different manufacturers, and more often than not those differences don't matter.
And most importantly, all the human sensors we have (sight, sound, smell, ...) are LOGARITHMIC, so they're much less sensitive to arithmetic progressions.... so, the only difference between the two argued cameras is usually not the number in question (10 vs 12mp), but many other factors (lens, noise level, noise reduction, color saturation algorithms, artificial sharpening, etc. etc.)
Yes, but the point was that 4:3 has a tad bit more light sensing area than most people give it credit for. In fact it isn't a whole lot smaller than Sigma's definition of "APS-C". And this at least has an influence on things like noise and dynamic range.
I do photography for a living, and Matthew has no idea what he is talking about. P&S cameras can has a low fstop because they have tiny sensors. The larger the sensor the larger the glass has to be to achieve f4. You should see the size and weight of my Nikon 70-200mm f2.8, plus it cost $1800. f4 is actually quite nice for a small kit lens, although I really think this camera should cost more around $1000 to be competitive. This might be the perfect hiking camera for me, small and great video.
@plothole
Oh, you were agreeing with me.... I'm sorry, not used to that (internet and all) :)
Problem is: The review sites, stuck with writing reviews about practically identical cameras from different manufacturers, tend to dramatize the small differences. And the public tends to dramatize those differences even further...
At the end, you'll hear the stories: "OMG the 4/3 sensor is SO TINY", or the new drama of ISO-KINGS; these cameras are literally outputting the same amount of noise (with various degrees of NR), yet people just jump to these one-sided conclusions, totally loving brand X and hating brand Y.
Sadly, what makes the most difference is something that most reviews don't even cover. It's not like 2.5fps is any different than 3.5fps (well, not to me), but it's how easy it is to change the drive in order to get that fps, all about how responsive the camera is, and the amount of light that still goes inbetween the shots into the viewfinder, and how much processing it does afterwards, etc, etc.... there are just so many things beyond a dumb number that make the camera either useful or a total piece of garbage for the situation (or what is total garbage for someone, might work for someone else)... but all of this information gets compressed into 2.5 vs 3.5... and then, of course, any moron can figure out that 3.5 is a bigger number than 2.5, why even write a review, you can just compare the spec sheet.
I want this camera pretty bad. I would rather buy micro 4/3rds as an Oly as well, but who knows how long they will take to release something similar or to release that concept that I also love. ( http://www.geek.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/2969961737_33749475de_b.jpg )
That is a nice concept and would be fantastic with the pancakes and smaller zooms, but it would be extremely awkward to use with the zoom provided on this Panny. You need the pistol grip to balance the camera with one hand, which you will at least occasionally need to do.
Oops, meant to reply to chadow above... Engadget, have you looked at Gizmodo's comment system. It actually doesn't suck...
if Paul is actually Paul Miller the Engadget editor, then that post on the comment system is hilarious.
Good things come to those who wait.
I've been wanting for a small SLR with video feature and reasonable price.
This is perfect. Those from Canon and Nikon are over priced and bulky. Unless you are a real pro, there is no reason to pay double for a camera like 5D Mark II.
I've been shooting with the D200 for years now and start to get tired of carrying around bulky gears and lenses.
This camera is way overpriced for what it does. $1500 for a 12MP camera with a crap standard lens. You can buy any number of superior D-SLRs for that price with far better kit lens. There is also no substitute for a true optical viewfinder. At $1500 you are well into prosumer territory. You would never use this camera for any type of studio photography, you can't trust an LCD screen for focus.
What looks sharp and in focus on a tiny LCD ends up being way out of focus in the real picture. I had to throw out 300 photos from a photoshoot becuase the photographer decided to rely on the LCD instead of focusing through the lens.
Fool.
The GH1 is so groundbreaking it's got its own category at DVXuser.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/index.php
I wouldn't say it's really ground breaking, it's just moving a form factor around. It's more or less putting a video camera with an over-sized sensor into an SLR like body with interchangeable lenses.
>> "The GH1 is so groundbreaking it's got its own category at DVXuser."
You're right. As a DVXuser member (and DVX100B owner) I read that site a lot.
The Panasonic GH1 seems to be a cheap filmmaker's dream... but I agree with the OP that you probably won't use this for serious still photography. It's a point-n-shoot after all :)
Nothing is as satisfying as looking through the lens on a real DSLR and seeing exactly what the camera sees. And the satisfying click of the mirror and shutter.
But, for the next few months, Vimeo and Youtube will be flooded with beautiful clips set to music showing off the GH1's capabilities... so we have that to look forward to.
But for video/film people, this IS groundbreaking. A camera that shoots HD with that big sensor and the accompanying shallow depth-of-field is a REALLY big deal. And unlike the current SLR options, it has no time limit on takes, won't overheat, and can auto focus in video mode. Plus you can control the thing manually in video mode, has a microphone input, can accept most any still lens around, has a super quiet high-quality kit lens and is only $1,500.00. Obviously, if you just want a still camera, this is not the choice for most. But in the video community, I can't remember this much excitement about an affordable camera since Panasonic's original DVX100, which was the first DV cam to shoot 24P.
>> "I can't remember this much excitement about an affordable camera since Panasonic's original DVX100, which was the first DV cam to shoot 24P."
I just bought a DVX100. I don't need HD just yet... I still shoot for DVD and web video. But the camera is amazing!
No dSLR lens can do what this one does. Its aperture is designed to transition seamlessly between f-stops. Not important for still photography, but a major improvement when it comes to video.
With the G1 you can zoom by a factor of 5x or even 10x to confirm the focus. That makes it better than a lot of optical viewfinders. Especially since the factory installed focusing screen is usually optimized for f3.8 or slower.
*f2.8 or slower
What you are doing, sir, is called "apples to oranges"!
Yes, jeep makes for a really slow sports car, but that's not the point of a jeep... Yes this camera has short-comings, but it's very obvious that you're not at all ready to accept any of its attributes; just because you don't value them, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Your "there's no replacement for an optical viewfinder" comment is as insightful as "we'll never need more than 640kb of memory". Honestly, what people call a viewfinder (on most aps-c cameras) is a dim light at the end of the tunnel, and I wonder why manufacturers even bother with the complex mirror design to provide such a crappy viewfinder (not that I'm dissing the SLR design, but I'm definitely dissing the many implementations of the concept)
I believe there will be a huge consumer market as the price comes down on these hybrid cameras. I for one would love a top quality yet small D-SLR camera and keep putting off the decision, instead opting for my Canon G9 or Nikon N200 film camera. The opportunity to add video as a bonus while maintaining small size would be great. I think people ARE choosing D-SLRs for point and shoot which explains the huge number of offerings in the $500 - $700 range (Oly, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc.)
Want, sure. At $899 not $1499 tho.
Good luck with that. That is a $600+ "kit lens" mounted to the front of that camera. The Nikon equivalent lens currently sells for $680! I seriously doubt Panasonic plans on selling the camera body alone for under $300. Like most people on here, I'm waiting on Olympus (or maybe Samsung). I prefer a range finder-esque form factors. Plus I prefer primes over super zooms. I hope Panasonic offers another kit with their 20mm pancake prime mounted instead of this "do everything" lens.
This camera is creating a great deal of excitement among more indie film/videomakers than photographers.
As a result, it's considered a niche camera. Although, for a niche camera, it could still sell decently.
The GH1 is definitely taking advantage where others appear unwilling or unable to.
Even if others can compete, I think their fear of having to restructure their business models to accomodate pro video implementation into still cameras is going to dictate their behavior.
Also, the GH1 is overpriced. It's obvious.
It's a decent package with the lens, no doubt, but in all seriousness it should have had an introductory price of $1,299.00 - Camera 899.00, and lens 399.00. By the winter Holidays and next spring, this camera will be priced where it's worth, but until then people will have to be happy with paying the "new" tax that's attached.
People complaining about the price and/or quality of this lens/camera are clueless. The Nikon and Canon equivalent zooms (approx 28mm-300mm focal length on 35mm) cost between 650 and 800 dollars and have approximately the same lowest aperture.
This Panny lens, however, has both a continuously variable aperture and a silent autofocus motor. Nikon and Canon lenses don't. The reason for these features in the Panasonic lens is for filming. And it costs more, too. If Nikon or Canon had a separate lens available with the same tech as this Panasonic lens, it would probably cost between 800-1000 bucks on its own. But they don't have this kind of tech in their lenses, yet, and as a result, you cannot control aperture or shutter speed while filming, and generally speaking, autofocus for filming sucks on Canon/Nikon dSLR's, if they even have the feature to begin with.
Compared to video cameras, there is nothing out there that I'm aware of that will shoot HD and take multiple lenses at this pricepoint, much less any camcorder with so large a sensor. I mean, this sensor size is astounding compared to regular prosumer camcorders. There's a reason the night footage looks so good on this (and all video-capable DSLR's). These things are going to re-write the book on camcorder standards.
How many people are spending 600-800 dollars on a DSLR and 600-800 on an HD video cam? (Hint: lots). This camera combines BOTH pieces of kit, does so with a much nicer lens than anyone is getting when they buy their 600-800 dollar DSLR/camcorder, and in a smaller form-factor than most. While it's not going to blow any comparably priced DSLR out of the water in terms of image quality, it IS head and shoulders (and we're talking the head and shoulders of Andre the Giant, here) above ANY video cam out there at this price.
One last cost breakdown, for those who haven't been paying close enough attention:
Comparable lens from competitors - 600-800 bucks (and that's WITHOUT the aperture/autofocus tech in the Panny lens)
Comparable DSLR from competitors - 600-800 bucks
Comparable camcorder from competitors - 600-800 bucks (Ok, not really. Comparable camcorder would cost MUCH more. But this is the price range that most basic HD-camcorders fall in.)
Total comparable cost - 1800-2400 dollars, and that's for multiple pieces of gear that's a generation behind in technology.
This is the future of DSLR's/Camcorders. Nikon and Canon had better get it right next time around (usable autofocus, full manual controls while filming, get rid of shutter roll effect, etc.) or they may find Panasonic cutting into their sales.
ticohans,
You've implied I'm clueless because I've an issue with the cost...yet, you've made it sound like a variable aperture lens is a positive feature.
Yeah, okay.
If this lens were constant f2.8 or maybe even constant f4 then I'd say the price is good. But it's not.
And while you're comparing this camera at cost vs other HD enabled DSLRs from Nikon or Canon, it should be mentioned that those other cameras have either an APS-C or full frame sensor. Noticeably larger snesors along with a very large selection of lenses for either crop or full frame. Panasonic's 4/3 system was developed with a smaller sensor and corresponding lenses to also serve as a cost saving measure, YET we don't really seem to be seeing that here.
Where are the savings?
Fact is, the GH1 is a good camera, no doubt. There's a good chance I'll even buy one during the summer. But it's based on cost-cutting technology that should have been passed down to the consumer and it has not been. In 6 months to a year, when the camera sheds a few benjamins it'll be priced more appropriately, arguably a good deal.
However, by that time there's no telling what other cameras will be available, so Panasonic better make this deal sweet while it lasts.
And, you're missing the point of 4/3 system... the point was to rework the optics for a smaller sensor... Canon/Nikon could have reworked the geometry of the optics for the 1.6 crop sensor, but they chose to be backward compatible with their collection of lenses, and thus kept the mount and all the larger dimensions that come with it (hence the word "crop")... The point of 4/3 was never to make cheap cameras (as you suggest), it's to rework the optics and mounting dimensions for the smaller sensors that EVERYONE was now using.
And it's an ongoing myth that 4/3 sensor is "small". 4/3 sensor is barely smaller than a 1.6x crop... I urge you to go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format and visually compare the sizes, you'll see that the difference between a 35mm and a crop sensor is much greater than between a crop and a 4/3 sensor... It's smaller, but it's not anywhere near the drama that everyone makes about it. In other words, if you're going to whine about the size of a 4/3 sensor, you might as well whine about every APS-C sensor.
This camera is far more important than a lot of you guys seem to think..
In addition to all the advantages of a small micro 4/3 cam, This has excellent DSLR-type 720P HD video recording *WITHOUT ROLLING SHUTTER* ... I've seen the clips.. the 1080P has a hint of it, but the 720P is nearly flawless. its probably because the sensor is smaller than the APS-C on the Nikon/Canon cams and so its able to read the entire chip in a shorter amount of time..
It's also important to note that Panasonic actually made this sensor for video. It's not just a tacked on feature.
What kind of video files come out of this camera?
Are they easily editable with Premiere Pro or Final Cut Pro? Or even iMovie or Premiere Elements?
Obviously digital recording is here to stay... so how do you edit this stuff???
It's AVCHD (recorded @ 17mbps), available as an MPEG4, H.264.
AVCHD isn't preferably edited in its native format due to the stresses that the highly compressed HD files put on the hardware and software available to most people isn't quite up to speed.
Even though some people's software might support it, it's recommended to have fairly powerful processor(s), lots of ram, 4-8GB preferred, and other forms of hardware acceleration can be installed as well to facilitate the process.
I've seen that people who have Final Cut Pro are using ProRes to edit in as an intermediate and then outputting to various files.
For people using an application like Sony Vegas they can edit them natively without too much trouble, but I think a lot of people are still converting to intermediates to speed up the editing process, like Cineform for Adobe Premier. After it's converted it edits smoothly in the appropriate application without stressing the hardware.
Sometimes the video has babies in it, sometimes the videos come out with pets on it, sometimes social gatherings... it's really hard to tell..
I already have this camera. So far it's been pretty good. The lens is in fact a bit slow for taking stills of moving people unless you're outside in the sun. It helps to bump the ISO up, but at the cost of noise...for such a long, flexible zoom lens this isn't surprising.
Auto-focus is fast, silent and works quite well. There is no zoom motor, so you have to manually twist the lens...this is difficult to do smoothly for video. Video is limited to 30minutes per shot, which is plenty. 60fps is buttery smooth.
Shorter zooms and primes will be available soon, or you can use existing lenses from other makers with the aid of an adapter. I also considered the Canons and Nikons, but there were just too many limitations and compromises.
$1500 is the list price, but it can be had for under $1300...like I did. Considering the feature set, I think the GH1 is best deal out there if you're looking for a decent still cam that can do great video.