Hoo boy are we stoked on this one. Panasonic has really shown what micro four thirds is all about, with the retro good looks and strong performance of the new Lumix DMC-GF1. The camera is certainly a bit larger and heavier than it looks from a distance, but housed within the slightly oversized shell are some pretty good optics and some snappy performance. You can't replicate the satisfying "kerklunk" of a real DSLR shutter, but the GF1 is responsive and clicky enough to give off a much better vibe than the standard camera in this size range. The few shots we took on auto looked quite vibrant in a variety of lighting conditions, though the close-ups showed a disturbingly shallow depth of field -- though that could obviously be tweaked. Being the filthy non-purists that we are, we're most excited by the camera's 720p video mode, which offers decently fast autofocus with a half press of the shutter button, and zero jelly vision to worry about. The downsides of no line-in and a higher pricetag than the comparable E-P1 aren't insignificant, but the GF1 will certainly put up a fight. Stick around for some in-camera test footage later on, test stills are below and there's a hands-on video after the break.
Update: Sample footage is now posted after the break! It was ripped from an AVCHD file to H.264, so there's been some generational quality loss, but you'll get an idea of the colors and the motion. We also just got word that the camera is up for pre-order at Amazon. [Thanks, Ron]
That is the conundrum, most experienced photographers wish for the shallow depth of field (sometimes to excess), whereas some macro photographers, and some inexperienced prefer a broader depth of field.
I have heard, and correct me if I am wrong, that using regular 4/3 lenses and other lenses on the m4/3 body (with an adapter) will give a broader depth of field.
FWIW, a 'disturbingly' shallow depth of field, in close up or macro photography is a fact of life? Lumix also announced a macro m4/3 lens this week. It will be interesting to see what depth of field it provides. It is priced as much as the camera, $900, ouch!
All Micro 4/3 lens mounts may be mechanically identical but lenses from different manufacturers will act differently on different Micro 4/3 bodies. In particular, Panasonic cameras are designed for lenses with the anti-shake mechanism is built in, while Olympus cameras have anti-shake in the body. Therefore, there will be no anti-shake on Panasonic lenses used on Olympus bodies, and vice versa.
Another difference is in the electronic correction of lens aberrations. Presumably each body has correction in its built-in software (but not, I guess, in RAW mode) and I doubt Panasonic incorporates correction for Olympus lenses, and vice versa.
What really would be interesting is some news about the accessory electronic VF, which would make this more like a real rangefinder camera.
Read dpreview's preview of the GF1, they go into some depth about the EVF. It sounds like it'd be nice to have, but it apparently doesnt have resolution nearly as good as the G1 and GH1
It's not AVCHD, but AVCHD Lite. I have the AVCHD Lite codec on the ZS3 - it is actually a great format, despite the current limited compatibility. Sony Vegas edits it natively, and Handbrake can be used to do the video conversion to whatever you like.
With regards to the first comment, this will best the LX3 - it's just a different class of sensor.
Finally, it's weird that this doesn't do stereo, since even the ZS3 does stereo. You'd think they could have found a place to stick a side-by-side mic. That said, if you're really into shooting video with tight sound, you weren't going to get it from the GF1 cam anyhow. Just go buy a Zoom H2 and stick it on the shoe.
Does anyone think it would be possible for the EVF input thingy-thangy (yep, called it that) on the back to accept some kind of stereo mic input in the future?
And here I am, just got my LX3 (well, D-Lux 4, but I'm reallllly vain and have no concept of value) in the mail today...
A shallow depth of field is actually a good thing, perhaps the best thing a camera can have which makes the author of this article a damn fool or at the very least someone thats been getting away with using terms he sees on the internet (like depth of field) and throws a random adjective in front of it in hopes of never getting caught. Well Paul it looks like your luck has run out, lets be honest though 'disturbingly' was an odd adjective choice so your run might have been coming to an end anyway.
Why is 720p an exciting feature on a $900 camera? Oh thats right, it isn't, the article was just written by someone that doesn't have a clue about camera technology. Never mind.
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.
posted September 3rd 2009 8:17AM
That is the conundrum, most experienced photographers wish for the shallow depth of field (sometimes to excess), whereas some macro photographers, and some inexperienced prefer a broader depth of field.
I have heard, and correct me if I am wrong, that using regular 4/3 lenses and other lenses on the m4/3 body (with an adapter) will give a broader depth of field.
FWIW, a 'disturbingly' shallow depth of field, in close up or macro photography is a fact of life? Lumix also announced a macro m4/3 lens this week. It will be interesting to see what depth of field it provides. It is priced as much as the camera, $900, ouch!
It's a pity this thing doesn't have stereo audio or external audio in. Beautiful 720P video, same small mono sound...
All Micro 4/3 lens mounts may be mechanically identical but lenses from different manufacturers will act differently on different Micro 4/3 bodies. In particular, Panasonic cameras are designed for lenses with the anti-shake mechanism is built in, while Olympus cameras have anti-shake in the body. Therefore, there will be no anti-shake on Panasonic lenses used on Olympus bodies, and vice versa.
Another difference is in the electronic correction of lens aberrations. Presumably each body has correction in its built-in software (but not, I guess, in RAW mode) and I doubt Panasonic incorporates correction for Olympus lenses, and vice versa.
What really would be interesting is some news about the accessory electronic VF, which would make this more like a real rangefinder camera.
Correction: Panasonic lenses used on Olympus bodies should have anti-shake correction, but not Olympus lenses used on Panasonic bodies. Sorry.
Read dpreview's preview of the GF1, they go into some depth about the EVF. It sounds like it'd be nice to have, but it apparently doesnt have resolution nearly as good as the G1 and GH1
It's not AVCHD, but AVCHD Lite. I have the AVCHD Lite codec on the ZS3 - it is actually a great format, despite the current limited compatibility. Sony Vegas edits it natively, and Handbrake can be used to do the video conversion to whatever you like.
With regards to the first comment, this will best the LX3 - it's just a different class of sensor.
Finally, it's weird that this doesn't do stereo, since even the ZS3 does stereo. You'd think they could have found a place to stick a side-by-side mic. That said, if you're really into shooting video with tight sound, you weren't going to get it from the GF1 cam anyhow. Just go buy a Zoom H2 and stick it on the shoe.
Does anyone think it would be possible for the EVF input thingy-thangy (yep, called it that) on the back to accept some kind of stereo mic input in the future?
And here I am, just got my LX3 (well, D-Lux 4, but I'm reallllly vain and have no concept of value) in the mail today...
Anyone else care of having Engadget Photo? they have it for TVs!
Anyone else care for Engadget Photo? They have it for TVs!
I'm thinking a LX3 is a more useful wide , fast and compact complement to my DSLR than this GF-1.
the camer in the pictures you post looks so beautiful. how about the battery life ? is it rechargable ?
The camera in the pictures you post looks so beautiful. How about the battery life? Is it rechargeable?
uwspstar from http://askbargains.com
A shallow depth of field is actually a good thing, perhaps the best thing a camera can have which makes the author of this article a damn fool or at the very least someone thats been getting away with using terms he sees on the internet (like depth of field) and throws a random adjective in front of it in hopes of never getting caught. Well Paul it looks like your luck has run out, lets be honest though 'disturbingly' was an odd adjective choice so your run might have been coming to an end anyway.
Why is 720p an exciting feature on a $900 camera? Oh thats right, it isn't, the article was just written by someone that doesn't have a clue about camera technology. Never mind.
The version is beautiful. Gimmme one!
I meant the white version. Whats wrong with me?