Panasonics Radical Design Micro 4/3 At Photokina

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:57 am

http://www.dpreview.com/Previews/PanasonicG1/

http://www.steves-digicams.com/pr/panas ... g1_pr.html

And new lenses for 2009:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/pr/panas ... es_pr.html

Harold

acerola · Post by **acerola** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:09 am

Interesting.

Cyclops · Post by **Cyclops** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 2:28 am

It seems Olympus and Panasonic are in cahoots,which is interesting as Panasonic is already in bed with Leica with its Lumix cameras. Leicolypan,Thats quite a partnership!

P_T · Post by **P_T** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:53 am

As interesting as that may be, I can only see one advantage of this micro four third system, smaller and (which should translate to) cheaper lenses.

The one thing I have problem with is the camera body itself, and other DSLR bodies in general. With such a small body, gripping it would be a problem. I use 450D which is pretty small in DSLR world and I have problem gripping it when I have to shoot in an awkward position.

Why don't DSLR manufacturers make a body where you can hold it like a compact digital video camera or a binocular? I reckon it's a much more natural way of holding it, sure is easier on my wrist.

Cyclops · Post by **Cyclops** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:08 am

Yea its a similar scenario to when olympus introduced the OM1 way back and when and introduced a compact SLR to the world.
Personally i prefer big chunky cameras plus i think such miniaturisation trends are about style and popularity,coolness when really they should be focusing on funcionality! As Weston said, form should follow function! In our modern must-have-it-now world it seems to be the other way around!

P_T · Post by **P_T** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:28 am

Well, I guess if they use smaller lenses, they should be lighter than the usual DSLR and for me personally, the smaller size is actually welcome if they also come up with a new innovative body design with more natural grip.

The reason for the conservative design doesn't really hold water to me. If you have young children you should've at least heard of Nintendo Wii. It has a radically designed new controller and people love it! It's just a matter of educating people on how much better the design would be.

Cyclops · Post by **Cyclops** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:33 am

Manufacturers fear that many consumers are put off by big heavy SLRs and so want to lure them with tiny small lightweight cameras. Personbally such a miniaturisation ethos puts me off!

P_T · Post by **P_T** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:44 am

Cyclops wrote:Manufacturers fear that many consumers are put off by big heavy SLRs and so want to lure them with tiny small lightweight cameras. Personbally such a miniaturisation ethos puts me off!

Sadly, that is quite true. My sister uses 40D which is bigger than my 450D but when we have a family get-together, she usually ask me if I'm taking my camera so she doesn't have to take hers because she "couldn't be bothered taking a chunky camera", her own words.

Same thing with my girlfriend. On our trip to Japan last time, she took like 10 times more photos with her point and shoot than I did with my DSLR and while she does admire the quality of images from my DSLR, she also said she wants something small enough to put in her purse.

Majority of people prefers convenience and I have to say I'm with them, which is why I went for the MP-E lens instead of all the extension tubes, reverse lens and whatnot.

If there's a smaller and lighter DSLR setup with comparable quality, I would seriously consider it, but only with a new grip design.

Cyclops · Post by **Cyclops** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:49 am

And thats the thing isnt it,smaller and lighter doest necessarily equal better or equal quality, ususally the opposite. Now my Panasonic is a great little camera, it really is but going back to it after using the Canon is like picking up a toy! and the quality is nowhere near there! Go above ISO 100 and quality suffers badly, its unuable at high ISO most of the time, whereas I can put the cano to ISO 400 no worries(in fact i did just that yesterday while shooting the Tour of Britain cycle race)

lauriek · Post by **lauriek** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:07 am

Cyclops wrote:And thats the thing isnt it,smaller and lighter doest necessarily equal better or equal quality, ususally the opposite. Now my Panasonic is a great little camera, it really is but going back to it after using the Canon is like picking up a toy! and the quality is nowhere near there! Go above ISO 100 and quality suffers badly, its unuable at high ISO most of the time, whereas I can put the cano to ISO 400 no worries(in fact i did just that yesterday while shooting the Tour of Britain cycle race)

But the quality is nothing to do with the size of the camera, only the size of the sensor. That's what's so interesting about micro 4/3 - it's the same sized sensor as in 4/3 DSLRs - 4/3 of an inch diagonal. That's ##### near the same size as the sensor in your APSC DSLR. (1.6x Crop APS vs 2.0x crop on 4/3). So the quality will be very close to what you get now.

Admitedly the APSC cams do have around 1 stop (I think it
s closer to 2/3 stop actually) advantage over 4/3 when it comes to noise. That simply means high iso is not /quite/ as good, though it's a world better than a little P&S with a tiny chip.

Other interesting aspects to this include the fact that Panasonic finally seems to have made contrast detect AF work quickly. It's always been accurate but has been slow in the past. DPR are saying the AF speed on the new Pany is good.

lauriek · Post by **lauriek** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:12 am

P_T wrote:As interesting as that may be, I can only see one advantage of this micro four third system, smaller and (which should translate to) cheaper lenses.

The one thing I have problem with is the camera body itself, and other DSLR bodies in general. With such a small body, gripping it would be a problem. I use 450D which is pretty small in DSLR world and I have problem gripping it when I have to shoot in an awkward position.

Why don't DSLR manufacturers make a body where you can hold it like a compact digital video camera or a binocular? I reckon it's a much more natural way of holding it, sure is easier on my wrist.

Another thing is this is a pure live view cam. Not a DSLR. Even though it has interchangeable lenses it's not a DSLR as there's no Reflex mirror or equivalent, but it's proper 'through the lens' viewing, just from a live view sensor rather than optically via the mirror box.

The lack of the mirror box is what allows the thin section on the camera, and should also enable the cameras to be produced a lot more cheaply, or to include a lot of fancy features at the same price. (although I appreciate this first cam from Pany doesn't really show this off - probably recouping some R&D money on this one...)

The pure EVF/live view leads to some interesting things, like face tracking AF in the first model from Pany. Doesn't interest me particularly but I think this is going to lead to some really cool developments, and I could actually see these EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lenses) cameras replacing DSLRs to a large extent in about 5-10 years.

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:47 am

Yes, but have you ever thought when this technology matures and it is applied in the future to full frame 35mm sized sensored former DSLR's, or even medium format former DSLR cameras what a difference it will make to camera and lens sizes? No earthly reason it should stop at the 4/3rds sensor size, it could eventually be applied to all former DSLR designs.

DaveW

lauriek · Post by **lauriek** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:04 pm

Oh absolutely...

However I have a personal theory that 35mm sized sensors are a bit of an anachronism, they only really exist now because of all the legacy glass out there.

As sensor technology marches inextricably on, the practical difference between smaller DSLR sensors and larger ones will reduce. We're already at a point where 4/3 or APS provides enough quality for nearly everyone. Well that quality is only going to get better, it can't get worse. Meaning the potential client base for larger sensors should shrink.

There will always be those that want ISO "as near to infinity as possible", they're not going to go away, and neither will 35mm, or MF, I just see the market shrinking in the medium to long term rather than growing.

I know this seems to go against the conventional wisdom that 35mm sensors are the 'next big thing' but I've yet to hear a good argument against my theory!

Cyclops · Post by **Cyclops** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:09 pm

I just think, quality wise, this is a backwards step. Smaller and smaller to pander to the fashion conscious snapper. I want an DSLR with a full frame sensor or bigger. I'd love a medium format DSLR,something like a Hasselblad H1, but i'd need a lottery win for that!

acerola · Post by **acerola** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:16 pm

I like the idea of the new Panasonic body. If the viewfinder is really good and the AF is fast then it could grow something very comfortable product line. Think about the zoomed in AF point during manual focusing in the viewfinder for example. And I think the compact cameras has more accurate exposure than the DSLRs. At least this was my impression when I switched from a Canon G5 to a Canon EOS 20D. Maybe I am not right, but a compact can work out the exposure from all the pixel of its sensors not just from a "couple" of exposure sensor or whatever they call it.
Quality wise the sensor and the lens are the most important. The sensor remains the same and the lens gets smaller just for the fact that is can get closer to the sensor. So it is not necessary to affect lens quality.
So I think this new system can potentially combine the best things from both type of cameras. Time will tell it.
I have a couple Canon lens so it must be something very good to make me switch. And the whole thing just make the competition stronger.