http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/ Engadget Comments for Panasonic Lumix GF1 reviewed http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 9th 2009 3:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Only negative (except for price) is mono sound recording.
]]>Oct 9th 2009 3:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 10th 2009 7:24AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 9th 2009 3:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/
I want something better than a point and shoot but I still can't see myself lugging a larger camera around.]]>Oct 9th 2009 3:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 9th 2009 3:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/
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]]>Oct 9th 2009 5:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/
Very interesting. Thanks.]]>Oct 9th 2009 6:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/
The Canon S90 is nice, but lacks HD video. Even cheapo Canon Powershot cameras can do HD.]]>Oct 9th 2009 10:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/
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.]]>Oct 9th 2009 11:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/> "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.]]>Oct 14th 2009 12:38AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 9th 2009 3:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/
Do Want]]>Oct 9th 2009 3:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/
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!]]>Oct 9th 2009 4:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/
Good looking video though, real nice bokeh.]]>Oct 9th 2009 6:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 9th 2009 3:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 9th 2009 3:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/
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.]]>Oct 9th 2009 6:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 10th 2009 10:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/
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.]]>Oct 9th 2009 3:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/
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.]]>Oct 9th 2009 3:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/
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.]]>Oct 9th 2009 5:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 10th 2009 10:06AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/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...]]>Oct 12th 2009 2:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 9th 2009 3:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/I can re-render the video without any curves adjustments and upload it if you'd like.]]>Oct 9th 2009 4:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 9th 2009 3:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 9th 2009 4:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/
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.]]>Oct 9th 2009 5:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/
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.]]>Oct 9th 2009 4:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 9th 2009 4:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 9th 2009 4:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 9th 2009 4:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 9th 2009 6:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 9th 2009 8:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/
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.]]>Oct 9th 2009 4:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/]]>Oct 9th 2009 5:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/
LiveView is practically useless in direct sunlight, whereas a good focusing screen will keep truckin.]]>Oct 9th 2009 5:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 9th 2009 6:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 9th 2009 6:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 9th 2009 6:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 11th 2009 12:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 10th 2009 1:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 10th 2009 3:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/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 :-)]]>Oct 10th 2009 9:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/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.]]>Oct 10th 2009 12:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/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.]]>Oct 10th 2009 10:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/09/panasonic-lumix-gf1-reviewed/Oct 10th 2009 12:40PM