Roundup: DSLR and Lens-Changing Cameras : Panasonic DMC-G1
8. Panasonic DMC-G1
LCoS: Better than an SLR?
Panasonic's consumer electronics team seems to have borrowed the G1's viewfinder from their colleagues working to develop the company's professional television cameras.
The viewfinder in question uses LCoS technology to allow a slightly sharper image than with a traditional LCD.
Normally, a regular LCD viewfinder shows 76,800 pixels, made up of 230,400 sub-pixels (one red, one green and blue at each pixel)--this is known as QVGA resolution.
The G1, though, reaches the SVGA standard of 480,000 pixels which are all capable of cycling between red, green and blue several times a second. They change color so quickly that you don't notice, and instead reconstruct the sharper image that provides more pixels.
These extra pixels actually make focusing a lot easier, and you have to have to swap to an SLR with a pretty decent optical viewfinder to find something better.
Nevertheless, there are still two problems, even with an advanced viewfinder such as this.
The first is with the input lag, the amount of time you have to wait for a scene to be shown on the viewfinder. Panasonic has cranked up the refresh rate to 60 Hz, so this is only very rarely problematic. It's not quite as instantaneous as an optical viewfinder, but in practice it's close enough to be more than worth it.
A second problem might be familiar if you've ever watched a presentation using a DLP projector: when you move your eyes, the red, green and blue pixels are no longer correctly aligned, and it's possible to notice colored bands across the image. It only lasts a moment, and few people find it genuinely annoying.
Change is in the air: while compact digital cameras have evolved rapidly in the past few years--so much so, in fact, that one of today's digital compacts has almost nothing in common with an analog compact from a few years ago--things have, until now, been moving more slowly when it comes to more advanced cameras with interchangeable lenses.
For a long time, the only way to tell digital SLRs from their film-based equivalents was the use of a digital sensor instead of film stock. Panasonic's Lumix DMC-G1, however, the first camera to support the micro four-thirds standard (µ4/3), promises to bring a generational change to the world of digital SLRs. The manufacturer's marketing machine has gone into overdrive, but does the new G1 actually deliver revolutionary results?
Handling
- Lumix DMC-G1 Black SLR...
The first thing you notice is that the G1 has a relatively small case, but the grip is good and it doesn't feel flimsy. If you're accustomed to using one of Panasonic's bridges--like the FZ30 or the FZ50--then this will be familiar territory for you.
The large screen in 3:2 format has a decent resolution, and can be turned in any direction, meaning you can get great viewing angles for shots at almost any angle. On the top, a set of sliders control the focus mode (standard autofocus, continuous autofocus or manual) and the settings for burst mode. A single button gives direct access to basic settings in each of these modes. The traditional click wheel still controls the choice of scene mode, and allows you to choose "iA" (Intelligent Auto) as one of the options.
As with Panasonic's compacts, activating the iA allows the camera to judge the type of scene and choose the appropriate scene mode (portrait, landscape, sport, etc.). In practice it works very well--so well, in fact, that we found we didn't even have to use the semi-manual modes very often.
Despite its insistence that it is moving on from traditional film-based technology, Panasonic has remained determined to use an old-fashioned system for controlling ISO settings. We would have preferred the Panasonic G1 to have a more intuitive way of controlling film speed, like the Sv mode found on Pentax's DSLRs.
Panasonic has stressed that the G1 has made improvements in its overall responsiveness. Indeed, the manufacturer suggests that the G1 should be as fast as digital SLRs, but that's a rather ambitious claim. Here's why: whereas an SLR uses phase detection to work out exactly where to focus, the G1--like any other compact--has to rely on measuring the amount of contrast in different areas of the frame.To get around this limitation, Panasonic's engineers have doubled the frequency with which the G1 calculates contrast, as well as tweaking the algorithms used to calculate how far away it is from the subject. The results are amazing, and, as long as light levels are good, bear comparison with a simple digital SLR. When light levels fall, the G1 looks even better next to SLRs, whose phase detection typically begins to wobble in low light. The G1, though, keeps on focusing in under half a second in almost any conditions. In burst mode, the comparison with a decent reflex camera also stands up.
Nevertheless, the autofocus slows down a little in burst mode, especially if you ask it to refocus in between each shot of a burst. It's an understandable failing, and one that it's hard to criticize the G1 for--especially as most of its intended users aren't professional sports photographers.
Image Quality
Given the camera's hardware, we weren't surprised to observe that the G1 took photos that came close to a regular 4/3 digital SLR. Its handling of very short exposure times is a little behind some of the very best contacts out there (like the Nikon D90), but it remains reasonable all the way up to 800 ISO, and useable at 1600 ISO. Things are a little less polished at 3200 ISO, where the noise manifests itself in the form of ugly strips across the frame.
In short, even if the G1 isn't up there with the most advanced 4/3 SLRs when it comes to these very fast film speeds, it walks all over other compacts. What's more, excellent image stabilization allows you to remain at 400 ISO even when light levels are very low.
The colors the G1 produces are rather easy on the eye, giving bright, lively photos. It can handle white balancing pretty well, and the G1 doesn't escape the general tendency of imaging equipment to produce photos that are a little too warm under incandescent light.
Under warmer lighting, things are a lot more natural.
The G1 vs. the Competition
Does the G1 actually have any direct competitors? It's difficult to say, because, technologically at least, it's a pretty unique camera. Its size makes it comparable with today's fixed-lens bridges, but it doesn't yet have the same amount of zoom--although a 14-140 mm lens will be on its way in 2009.
On the other hand, the G1 beats these cameras hands down in terms of image quality, noise handling and depth-of-field detection. Looking at some of its other features, the G1's large sensor and interchangeable lenses (not to mention its price point) make it seem closer to some of today's entry-level SLRs. But looking at is size and shape, it's abundantly clear that this isn't a reflex. In a case this small, the light from the lens is falling straight onto the sensor with none of the complicated optics that are found inside an SLR.
The G1 also offers plenty of automatic settings that are likely to appeal to photographers who are used to a compact--but includes the ability to customize features that a compact could never even dream about.
By trying to make a camera that offers the best of both worlds, Panasonic has fundamentally reexamined many aspects of digital camera design to produce a quality product. Nevertheless, we'd like to draw your attention to two weak spots:
- The first is a lack of video, which seems difficult to justify when the majority of modern SLRs do support it. Naturally, Panasonic has sought to justify this decision, explaining that still photography and filming moving images are two very different technical challenges. Autofocus in particular is hard to get right, but we're told that engineers are currently working on smoothing out some of the practical problems so that the next µ4/3 camera can capture video. It's certainly a shame that it wasn't ready in time, and we can't help but wonder if Panasonic might not have been wiser to wait six months or so before bringing a more complete product to market.
- The second problem is the inclusion of mechanical shutters, another surprising decision on Panasonic's part. On a camera that is supposed to be the first of a new digital generation, it seems odd to rely on such old technology. If an electronic shutter had been used (and Panasonic can't claim ignorance--they've used them elsewhere), then the G1 would be a much quieter camera.
| Panasonic DMC-G1 | |
|---|---|
| Pluses | Minuses |
|
|
| THE FINAL VERDICT Panasonic's highly-anticipated DMC-G1 is now here, and it's certainly made a big impact. A very likeable little camera, it's astonishingly powerful for its size, and has been carefully crafted both inside and out. Nevertheless, all of this innovation has not been evenly applied, and Panasonic could certainly improve its noise handling, for instance. |  |
I've only read 2 pages but these guys don't know what they are talking about. SLRs were not "used mostly by professionals", there have been huge consumer sales of them for decades. Also, the D70 was not "the first truly affordable mass-market DSLR", it was a great camera (I wanted one when it came out), but the Canon D300 was clearly the "the first truly affordable mass-market DSLR". This review is a low point for Tom's. You guys are really getting a reputation for putting out fluff written by idiots. Get back to the old standards of quality, detailed, knowledgeable articals that made Tom's name rightly famous in the first place.
I've only read 2 pages but these guys don't know what they are talking about. SLRs were not "used mostly by professionals", there have been huge consumer sales of them for decades. Also, the D70 was not "the first truly affordable mass-market DSLR", it was a great camera (I wanted one when it came out), but the Canon D300 was clearly the "the first truly affordable mass-market DSLR". This review is a low point for Tom's. You guys are really getting a reputation for putting out fluff written by idiots. Get back to the old standards of quality, detailed, knowledgeable articals that made Tom's name rightly famous in the first place.
I'm not the writer of this piece, but I want to make sure we are "on the same page": "For a long time, SLRs were effectively the only digital cameras that used interchangeable lenses. Used mainly by professionals, they were expensive and difficult to master. Little by little, they've grown in popularity, with Canon's EOS 300D one of the first truly affordable digital SLRs released back in 2003."
Where did this article mention the D70? Apologies if I missed it but I would appreciate it if you could point it out.
Let's both of us go dig up sales and demographics data of SLRS from the past four decades, shall we? I think we'll probably both find that the majority of sales went to professional photographers. That doesn't mean that consumers didn't buy them in droves--it just means that the majority of sales went to professionals.
We appreciate your feedback and criticism, but if the two comments you made constitute a "low point" for this site, then you are perhaps the most critical reader we've ever had. Thanks.
Rachel Rosmarin
Editor, Tom's Guide
Good overview suitable to the scope of this site. (Professionals and enthusiasts already look elsewhere, and from that perspective it's fine.) Odd mix of cameras though and a bit oversimplified at times, but fine for here. Nevertheless, what supports this statement: "Nikon's D90 ... A direct descendent of the legendary D70, the first truly affordable mass-market DSLR."? I mean that title is undoubtedly reserved for the Digital Rebel (300D), while the D70 was later and more expensive.
"After the Canon E-3 with its slightly disappointing semi-pro ambitions, Olympus is now finally moving to fill the hole that separted its top end reflex camera from its E-420 and E-520 amateur range."
you might want to change Canon to Olympus. As Olympus makes the E-3.
"After the Canon E-3 with its slightly disappointing semi-pro ambitions, Olympus is now finally moving to fill the hole that separted its top end reflex camera from its E-420 and E-520 amateur range."you might want to change Canon to Olympus. As Olympus makes the E-3.
Thank you!
There is a lot more proof reading needed. (100D? ...)
Let's both of us go dig up sales and demographics data of SLRS from the past four decades, shall we? I think we'll probably both find that the majority of sales went to professional photographers. That doesn't mean that consumers didn't buy them in droves--it just means that the majority of sales went to professionals.We appreciate your feedback and criticism, but if the two comments you made constitute a "low point" for this site, then you are perhaps the most critical reader we've ever had. Thanks.Rachel Rosmarin Editor, Tom's Guide
Photography is like everything else in a consumerist society: For every professional there are a thousand people who will spend whatever it takes to act just like a professional. The SLR market has and always will owe a significant section of it's business to the purely consumer market, that is to say people who will never make a dime off the pictures they take. The difference between how people pick cameras coming from the consumer segment vs. the professional segment is something that is apparently lost on your writers. Picking a page at random (which, I felt like, committed about as much research to your article as your article did to Digital Photography,) I find a statement comparing an E-Volt to a Nikon D60 and a Canon 40D and this tells me all I need to know about the article: it's woefully uninformed.
When there are photography review sites by the dozen on the WWW, why does Tom's feel the need to push into this area? I would understand your angle if something were added to the mountains of reviews out there, like benchmarks on how well the camera/interface/software bundle work so that people concerned with PC based photo editing can read up on the pros/cons from each manufacturer.
I do share your affection for the 40D, but you neglected to review it directly-- Curious.
Photography is like everything else in a consumerist society: For every professional there are a thousand people who will spend whatever it takes to act just like a professional. The SLR market has and always will owe a significant section of it's business to the purely consumer market, that is to say people who will never make a dime off the pictures they take. The difference between how people pick cameras coming from the consumer segment vs. the professional segment is something that is apparently lost on your writers. Picking a page at random (which, I felt like, committed about as much research to your article as your article did to Digital Photography,) I find a statement comparing an E-Volt to a Nikon D60 and a Canon 40D and this tells me all I need to know about the article: it's woefully uninformed.When there are photography review sites by the dozen on the WWW, why does Tom's feel the need to push into this area? I would understand your angle if something were added to the mountains of reviews out there, like benchmarks on how well the camera/interface/software bundle work so that people concerned with PC based photo editing can read up on the pros/cons from each manufacturer.I do share your affection for the 40D, but you neglected to review it directly-- Curious.
We appreciate your input, Joebob. Do us a favor and tell us what you mean about the improper comparison of the E-Volt to the Nikon D60 and Cnon 40D--give us a sense of why this is highly inappropriate. That would be extremely useful.
As for why we bother to publish Camera roundups: Cameras are a huge consumer electronics category. We try to cover all consumer electronics categories on Tom's Guide. We don't do camera benchmarks, and in fact, I think we can all agree that this roundup here is not an incredibly thorough review. I'm the first to admit it, but the truth is that we're not aiming for hard-core camera reviews. We're aiming for basic, intro-level stuff. Do you think the basic level writeup is something that's been overdone on other sites? Personally, I don't. There's an audience for it, believe me. I hope that ultra camera-savvy readers of Tom's Guide can a) tolerate the fact that these articles are not for them, and b) not read them if they aren't of interest to them.
Thanks,
Rachel Rosmarin
Editor, Tom's Guide
I've used SLR's since I was in High School 40 years ago, so their use isn't (wasn't) restricted to professionals. I wonder why 2 Canon's, 2 Pentax, 3 Olympus were reviewed, but only 1 Nikon, and I wonder what audience this was aimed at. If this was aimed at people without SLR/DSLR experience, then they missed reviewing some of the more obvious cameras. If the article is aimed at more experienced people then it is of some interest although those people probably already know about the different cameras.
I've used SLR's since I was in High School 40 years ago, so their use isn't (wasn't) restricted to professionals. I wonder why 2 Canon's, 2 Pentax, 3 Olympus were reviewed, but only 1 Nikon, and I wonder what audience this was aimed at. If this was aimed at people without SLR/DSLR experience, then they missed reviewing some of the more obvious cameras. If the article is aimed at more experienced people then it is of some interest although those people probably already know about the different cameras.
Thanks Cadder. Nowhere in this article did we say SLRs are (or ever were) restricted to professionals. We simply made a claim that decades ago, the majority of users were professional (and many many other users were not professional!).
As for the intended audience--it is aimed at novices who are curious about the more-than-entry-level DSLRs out there. Stay tuned for a follow up article this week about the newest entry level DSLRs!
Okay, you say that this roundup is for novices about more-than-entry-level SLRs. What do you call D1000, E-420 and K-m if not entry level SLRs? They are the absolutely most affordable DSLRs on the market currently (plus Sony A200 and Nikon D60).
Like Joebob said, it's truly amazing you are comparing E-520 against D40.
Hi vvi,
So, yes, there are also also some entry-level DSlRs here. Is this a problem? Would you rather see 3 different reviews, broken into separate DSLR categories? We didn't choose to structure it that way.
Like I said to Joebob, I would love to here a concise reason why an E-520 and a D40 should never appear in a roundup together. Yes, they are cameras aimed at slightly different targets, but they are both DSLRs, and for the purpose of this review, that was the only criterion needed to be included in this roundup.
Yet another poor camera article from Toms Guide. It took you until the second paragraph to make your first mistake, sensor size has nothing to do with depth of field, that would be lens aperture.
Things go downhill from there. Super zoom lenses exist for SLR’s and compact super zoom lenses suffer considerably from distortion, chromatic aberration and poor resolving ability. Lenses do not suffer in low light. That would be the cameras focus engine and the sensors high ISO performance. Again, in this field SLR’s are significantly better than compacts.
The terminology used in a number of places in the article is also incorrect. High ISO settings suffer from increased sensor noise, dead pixels are things on monitors, hot pixels are things on camera sensors.
“Canon has yet to develop a system to account for the various chromatic distortions that various lenses are known to produce.” Except for the software that you mention in the next paragraph. The 500D sensor has micro lenses just like the 50D’s and no mention of its HD video capture? Next gripe is the same and mentioned by gyrodec, nuf said. As for the rest of the D90 review, I hope you got paid by Nikon for that advertising, it truly is a wonderful camera but you could have been a lot more objective about the language used. You say the Nikon D90 has to face up to the Canon 40D, but that the poor old 40D is a generation to old. So how does it match up to,… oh I don’t know, lets possibly try compare it to the very real and current canon 50D? The D90 is not the only camera in the review to shoot HD video.
The Olympus E-30 is not the only camera to have a moving screen, how about the Sony A350… Hang on, how about any Sony, why no love for Sony in this little round up of yours? Same for the Pentax KD20 and Canon 50D, you mention them a couple times, but no page for them either?
This is the point where I give up on the whole thing and go to bed, Toms editorial team, you are capable of so much more than this!
Geoman,
Thanks for your comments! I will attempt to get answers for your first four criticisms. I've noticed a lot of you have questions about why we included this camera but not that camera, why we didn't include every camera on the market, etc. The answer is simple: we didn't get review units of the cameras that are missing. We don't have the budget to go purchase every camera on the market to fill up the roundup. You probably want to visit another site if you are looking for the most thorough spec list and deep listing of every single DSLR on the market. You won't find it from us. We test the products that are available to us.
Thanks for reading,
Rachel Rosmarin
Editor, Tom's Guide
Tom’s writers keep insinuating that DSLR’s are for professionals only, but that things might just be changing now. This has not been the case for quite some time, not since the Canon 300D over 6 years ago. I invite Tomsguiderachel to go and do some responsible journalism, please go and research how many D50-D90’s and 300D-500D’s have been sold compared to D2&3’s or 1D’s, then consider whether DSLR’s are for professionals only. DSLR’s are not complicated, if you don’t have a clue how a camera works, turn the dial on top to the green camera icon, look through the eye piece at something you want to take a photo of, press the button that naturally falls under your right index finger, job done. If you want to take better pictures read the manual that came with the camera, you can limit it to the chapters with setting shutter speed, aperture and setting ISO, that shouldn’t take more than an hour or two, and doesn’t require a degree in the physics of light. Just because professionals use DSLR’s does not mean DSLR’s are for professionals only. Tomsguiderachel, please do your job as editor and make sure that articles that are published are accurate, unbiased and of an appropriate standard for Toms Guide.
I may be picking on the wrong person, but you seem to be the only person from Toms following up on our comments and your profile say’s you are editor of Tom’s Guide.
Hi Geoman,
Please forgive me, but I don't see where in the article it ever insinuated that DSLRs are for professionals only. Since so many readers have brought up this point and made this claim, I'm realizing that I must have simply missed that when I read this article. Please point out what page it is on, and then we can get to the sales data.
Thanks. Don't worry you're not picking on me--this is what I'm here for--to discuss these articles with you.
Rachel
Is the D90 Kodak picture black and white? Why?
I do have to say that the D60 should have been included. At the price point it is not a bad DSLR.
OK, I guess it’s time for me to stop picking holes in your guy’s work and give some constructive comments.
Add a little more quantifiable data to the review, it doesn’t have to make the review more complicated, but a bit more data would be appreciated.
Keep review’s and camera comparisons limited to a single market segment, otherwise comparisons aren’t relevant and review just have to much to cover.
I feel that your DSLR reviews are aimed to low, the kind of people who are buying DSLR’s tend to have done a bit of reading on how cameras work and want a bit more of an analytical approach to camera articles.
Personally I’d like to see more quantifiable parts to these reviews like noise or resolution, so if you do a round up article like this I can see what cameras perform best in which areas by the numbers. Sure having a page to each camera with non-quantifiable stuff like control layout and camera feels is also vital, but some hard numbers would be a welcome addition.
In the reply to another comment, something you mentioned was splitting this review into a number of different reviews, and yes I think that should have been done, this also ties in to joebob2000’s comments. You compare cameras in different segments and from different generations to each other, which isn’t a valid thing to do. If these were CPU’s that would be like comparing a 6 year old Celeron to a Core i7 and concluding that the i7 is better. Of course it’s better, but it’s a silly comparison to make in the first place. Generally the DSLR market is broken into entry level, mid entry level, mid level, prosumer and pro levels (ok, people will always argue about the what levels there really are but you get the idea) and comparing cameras between these groups will generally get you criticized. So do roundup articles like this in one market segment at a time.
If people want to step up from compacts to DSLR’s and want a bit more info before they do, maybe Toms guides needs to do some actual guides. Articles like the difference between compacts and DSLR’s and getting more out of your DSLR that could cover things like sensor noise, the advantages/disadvantages of different types of lenses like wide angles or telephoto lenses, like field of view, depth of field and perspective. Help get more information to people instead drop the level of all your articles.
The articles themselves need a bit more fact and spell checking to. I only read the first couple of pages and I’ve already given you the list of errors I found, and I’m by no means an expert in the field and I’m dyslexic, so you should be able to do better than me :-)
For the Professionals comments articles titles like “Canon EOS 5D Mark II: Amateurs Need Not Apply”, paragraphs headed “Professional Use Only?” and comments like “For a long time, SLRs were effectively the only digital cameras that used interchangeable lenses. Used mainly by professionals, they were expensive and difficult to master.” You never overtly say DSLR’s are only for professionals but it gives your readers the distinct impression that you think DSLR’s are, or were until only recently for professionals.
Finally if you’re going to leave something out, like the Sony’s in this review, tell us that at the beginning, and give us a reason. I won’t bash you for leaving something out if you have a decent reason for leaving it out.
I hope you guy’s find this a little more constructive than my previous tirades :-)
"Professional Use Only?
For a long time, SLRs were effectively the only digital cameras that used interchangeable lenses. Used mainly by professionals, they were expensive and difficult to master. Little by little, they've grown in popularity, with Canon's EOS 300D one of the first truly affordable digital SLRs released back in 2003."
This is the paragraph that is getting people reactions. I too felt it sounded miss-leading or awkward, since I got a Nikon slr N40 in college as a architect student and now a nikon D40 as a hobby as an architect. DSLRs nor SLRs would never still be in business if only professional bought them. Professional account for less then 1% of the population. This is not a major issue, readers like myself are not use to tomguide reviewing dslr like computer.
I been reading Tomguide (or tomhardwareguide) for a while. It was once focus mainly on computer hardwares, some accessories, talks of computer chips and memory like the other site xbit. Also, overclocking cpu and windows' items. Now that tomguide has become bigger it seem to branch into cameras and other electronics like cnet reviews. For hardcore camera's reviews I do check out dpreview and cnet. For computer hardware reviews tomhardwareguide is still one of the best. Laptop reviews: notebookcheck.
It takes time to get a loyal followings for new types of reviews when you branch off a little. The DSLR reviews are comprehensive, but a little different then other DLSR reviews. Also many of these cameras has been out and reviewed long time before this article. Which will lead readers to be subjective.
We appreciate your input, Joebob. Do us a favor and tell us what you mean about the improper comparison of the E-Volt to the Nikon D60 and Cnon 40D--give us a sense of why this is highly inappropriate. That would be extremely useful.
Thanks,Rachel RosmarinEditor, Tom's Guide
At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon; if this is meant as an introductory article to DSLR photography then in my opinion the writer should spent at LEAST half the text on fundamentals and not mention any cameras by name until the second half. Without getting into too much detail, the two key factors for deciding on a camera body (ignoring the lenses and special case photography completely) is High ISO performance and overall Dynamic Range performance. Put in english, this means the best possible picture taken in the dark and the best possible compromise between dark and light in a single picture. These metrics are what set cameras like the E-volt apart from the Canon 40D (which is peerless in the sub-$1000 market) and set the 40D apart from more expensive bodies by Canon, Nikon, and the rest. Beyond that, lenses and a few minor features are all that stand between casual photographers and serious professionals. Of course, the principle of diminishing returns means that professionals are going to need to spend $10,000 or more to take pictures that are noticeably better than someone spending $1,000 on an amateur set-up.
I will venture one more observation and then let you guys get back to work. If you want to tackle the entry level DSLR market you need to tell people what they are getting for their money. Honestly there are plenty of people who ask me about cameras that receive the suggestion "please just buy a point and shoot". One needs to be ready to take advantage of the benefits of a DSLR or they are going to be burning money and not taking any better pictures. Tell your readers what the real impact is of spending $1000 on a DSLR vs $200 on a point-n-shoot, and don't even bother using the word "professional" in an article again until you are reviewing DSLR bodies priced above $1500-- that's where the pros live.
I like Tom's and the writers, I really do. If I thought you were really spewing crap I would have just deleted the bookmark and moved on with my time. I hope that you can take away something helpful from my comments, and find your direction in the brave world of photography.