The typical
Micro Four Thirds review seems to come down to a matter of tradeoffs -- size and convenience for a bit of a drop from the image quality and performance of a real DSLR. The
GF1 doesn't break that trend, but it has some pretty nice things to offer for the inquisitive interchangeable lens shopper. The most notable feature when put up against its direct competition, the E-P1, is the GF1's built-in pop-up flash, and the primary drawback of both of these cams versus their regular Micro Four Thirds counterparts is the lack of an eye-level viewfinder, though the GF1 does offer a pricey hot-shoe mounted approximation. As for images
PhotographyBLOG says the camera gets "almost everything right," and video doesn't look bad neither -- a couple samples are after the break. The camera is no ultra-compact, but it seems another good proof for the existence of Micro Four Thirds as a DSLR alternative.
posted Oct 9th 2009 2:48PM
The tech behind this stuff is so exciting. Nobody said that overcoming the shortfalls of the 60-year-old SLR concept would be easy, and we certainly aren't there yet, but at least we're on our way. Can't wait to read the whole review.
Looks nice.
Only negative (except for price) is mono sound recording.
man, I so want this. drop the price by £200 and im there!
Um...where's the "read" link?
Link please.
I want something better than a point and shoot but I still can't see myself lugging a larger camera around.
It's always a sacrifice..
Check out the Canon S90.
It's a compact point-n-shoot... but it's got a fast f/2 lense, it shoots RAW, and has a nifty control ring for setting various controls for the camera. It's got the most stuff crammed into a small, pocketable body...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09081906canons90handson.asp
@ Michael
Very interesting. Thanks.
Michael Scrip,
The Canon S90 is nice, but lacks HD video. Even cheapo Canon Powershot cameras can do HD.
I can't vouch for the quality of the Canon S90 but I am true believer in the Panasonic LX3. I bought this camera in March and the quality it delivers makes me eager to reach for it every time.
If you want to see some sample pictures of what this camera can do, check out:
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/panasoniclx3_samples/
And, yes, I would say those are a _very_ accurate representation of what the camera can do.
The only drawback would be the 2.5x optical zoom whereas most cameras are delivering around 5x. This is not a camera if you're trying to shoot pictures of your kid's baseball game from the bleachers. Yes, there are times I wish I could zoom just a tad closer but for me,those times are few and far between. Instead, I just move myself closer until I frame the shot how I want it.
@StevenN >> "The Canon S90 is nice, but lacks HD video. Even cheapo Canon Powershot cameras can do HD."
The S90 has a much bigger sensor than a PowerShot and less pixels crammed into the sensor too... and a better lens. It's for a different market. Canon's S-series and G-series cameras are for photos... not video.
Oh, and it shoots RAW... this ain't a consumer camera.
If you care about compact digital photography, the Panasonic GF1, LX3, Canon G11 and S90 should be on your short list.
The "Read" button is just below the 2nd Video clip.
Looks like they had just slightly too much fun with the color grading, but dang... that is some sexxy footage.
Do Want
I have to admit, I did overdo it.
In my defense though, these are the first real video shoots and edits I have ever done.
Good to hear some feedback though, I will use any tips I receive for my video class in college!
I agree – overboard with the post-processing color shift. (I'd rather see NO processing for demo video.)
Good looking video though, real nice bokeh.
But why would anyone buy this instead of an hypersexy GH1?
Is this what camera reviews are now? Video samples?
All cameras over the last few years take great pictures, so there's really no point. They could have put up a sample photo gallery, but it wouldn't look too different from the last camera they reviewed. Go to DPReview and look at their sample photo galleries. They always shoot the same scenes to test all their cameras... so the samples are almost identical.
But video is the big difference these days. Some cameras do it well... some don't.
It's kinda like reviewing printers. Once printers reached the ability to print a photograph... you can't really go much further. If you can print a photograph... you can't get "better" than a photograph. So they focus on other things when discussing printers... speed, features, WIFI, etc.
Definitely disagree. Perhaps it's fair to say most cameras take pretty good pictures in easy lighting situations. I know for a fact that the noise performance in low-light shots of Fuji cameras from 2 or 3 years ago is superior to what they have out currently. It's the same when you look at cameras like the Canon EOS40D and 50D - sure, they're great cameras, but many people are claiming that low-light image quality dropped with the newer one.
Like Olympus, Panasonic went to the trouble to design a terrifically capable and appealing camera, but with one huge deal-breaking omission: a good built-in optical viewfinder.
Given the base price of these cameras, there's no excuse for not building in an optical viewfinder, and there's no way I'm going to pay an outrageous price for an add on. It's like going to buy a new car only to discover the manufacturer has decided a windshield is an extra-cost option.
swa, they do have one with a built-in viewfinder. It's called the GH1.
But imagine a GF1 with a viewfinder. Where would you put it? How comfortable would it be to hold a tiny camera up to your face? At first I had the same opinion as you, but after thinking about it, I realized that they made the right decision to make the viewfinder an add-on. A viewfinder takes too much space and if you are prioritizing size, then you leave off the viewfinder.
They didn't "take out" the viewfinder - it's simply impossible on a micro-four-thirds camera given that there is no mirror box.
I disagree with the notion that the viewfinder is an unimportant feature, though. Most cameras - even well regarded point and shoots - are impossible to use under direct sunlight. The LCD becomes a muddled mess where you can barely read the text on it, much less compose and take a good picture.
The E-P1 had a gigantic failing - there was no viewfinder, yet the LCD sucked, making the camera an unusable mess in a sexy package. The GF1 has a much more competitive LCD, but what people really want is a *really small SLR*, not a point and shoot with SLR-quality sensor.
I see it all the time - sunny, beautiful day, people out with friends and family. They'd stand in front of some landmark and someone would try to take a picture. They'd struggle with viewing the LCD - shielding it with their hands and trying everything to actually KNOW wtf they're shooting. Never quite works. A viewfinder makes this problem entirely moot - has for decades.
In short, yeah, cool tech - but the lack of viewfinder means you're just going to be taking *really high quality*, *really shitty* photographs most of the time - you can't compose any better than you can on a point and shoot.
I think they sacrificed the electronic viewfinder for the sake of size and portability. Note in the post above that it would have been an electronic viewfinder, not an optical viewfinder - it's a limitation (or an advantage) of the technology not to have a mirror and pentamirror/pentaprism.
i have to agree. I would have gotten the e-p1 in a blink of an eye if it had an built in evf. GF1 just doesn't cut through for my taste of looks. much more prefer the vintage style of e-p1.
I also don't think m4/3 systems have a future unless they cut the cost for about 200 bucks, then i would just forget the lack of an evf...
Damn. There is a TON of post processing going on in those videos. I'd like to see some raw footage. Looks good though, none the less. The f1.7 prime is an amazing lens too.
Yes, there is- I was experimenting with it a bit (first time doing video). So, my bad.
I can re-render the video without any curves adjustments and upload it if you'd like.
Sexy Panny Girl Friend One.
Is any body really going to notice the difference in image quality between a 4/3s camera and an APS-C DSLR? Pixel peepers?
Check DPReview reviews. They go into details sometimes. Short answer: no. Longer answer: for A4/letter prints you wouldn't see any difference.
Panay sensors (Oly uses them too) are also slightly behind Canikon cameras in high ISO department.
P.S. Their RAWs also contain about +/-1 EV step of extra information. On Canikon cameras it's +/- 2 EV steps.
uclatommy, they could've included a flash on the front, moved the accessory shoe to where the pop-up flash is and located the viewfinder where the accessory shoe is now. Where there's a will there's a way. BTW, it wouldn't bother me at all if the camera had to be slightly larger to include a viewfinder.
The GH1 costs $1,500. A GF1 is $800 and its accessory viewfinder is $199. Talk about paying through the nose to get an optical viewfinder.
What a cute little flash. I will hug him and squeeze him and call him George.
Beautiful, small DOF video at 720P, same shitty mono sound as a $100 point and shoot. When will they learn?
It's really not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. Did you see the video on youtube of the string quartet taken with the pre-production GF1?
Gotta get a Panasonic GH-1 or a Pentax K-7. They're the ones with a mic input.
Without an external mic, you're not going to get any worthwhile channel separation anyways. "Stereo" sound on most digital cameras is just for show. I think it's tough to judge the sound quality with a music overlay anyways. If you search for other sample GF1 videos, they actually have pretty good sound quality.
Let's not forget, with Micro 4/3 there is no "optical" viewfinder. It's an EVF add-on, and most EVFs I've ever used are pretty useless for photography. Even at high pixel counts, it's hard to see the DOF you are using unlike a real SLR. Of course, holding the camera to your eye makes it much more natural (and the images are more stabilized due to the nature of your posture). I'm glad they made EVF an option and didn't build the extra cost directly into the camera.
This whole format is pretty amazing, and the built-in pop-up flash gives this a major advantage over the EP-1. I can imagine with the EP-1 I'd often leave the flash home and not be able to use slight fill in low-light situations after it got dark.
Two years ago I would have bought this camera without thinking. Small and portable, with a great 50mm equivalent as the eye sees f1.7 lens. It's completely controllable by manual operation, so you make the decisions about exposure and DOF. Plus, it has low-light sensitivity that is relatively DSLR like with controlled noise. It's brilliant.
But with the economy, I'm gonna buy one of these as soon as the price drops a bit - and it always does.
I'm a pretty dedicated SLR guy, but I could give roughly .003 shits about the lack of an optical viewfinder. The APS-C sensor's frame is so small that manual focus is a hilariously unfunny joke, even with my 20/15 vision. OTOH, with a 3-inch screen and live view, like you get with micro 4/3, manual focus is a real option.
Have you tried using a focusing screen? Those were all the rage back in the day before big LCDs and live view - they work wonders (better than LV even).
LiveView is practically useless in direct sunlight, whereas a good focusing screen will keep truckin.
@potato: I considered it, but the APS-C frame is just too tiny even for the focusing screen to be helpful. Meanwhile I've used my friend's GH1 with old Canon lenses via the adapter, and focusing manually with it, even in bright light, is a breeze.
This camera is going to look so awesome when the flash refuses to shut and/or break off.
Wow vid look almost movie like. I'm impressed. Might even get this and sell my G1 :(
Nice videos. Somebody's got some talent.
Where can I sign up?
Wow, this article and videos wus totally cribbed from other people.
@Wylyin
Nice video AND grading. How did you do it. I have Color and iMovie HD but the complexity of Color has not made me use it yet - thought I like this desat effect - although you cannot find any commercial nor feature film nowadays that is not desaturated. Well - its a trend and fashion definitely. We got all wonderful plasmas and LCS - let's make video look as if it is bleached in the sun :-)
@fitoldermen
Thanks!
To get the color effects, I just played around with the color curves in Adobe After Effects although I'm sure you can also adjust curves in other big name editing programs. I just played around with the red, green and blue curves until I got the look I wanted- much like photoshop. Of course in retrospect I would probably tone down the saturation a bit.
@Joseph Mama
I agree - the LX3 is a wonderful cam and the low light quality is outstanding. Also the video (though mono as well and no re-focus during shooting) is quite amazing. I would like to see a direct video comparison between LX3 and GF1 as I am considering to upgrade. But then - the GH1 would be better upgrade (when I just keep the LX3 for what it is: A small street cam you take everywhere with you.
Just letting everyone know I re-uploaded the second video without any edits or music, so you can see and hear what comes straight out of the camera.