Milich LTM to M4/3 adapter reviewed

[TEBnewyork]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Imants,

 

After having been subjected to the D2's grainy EVF and its manual focusing the G1 is a dream to use. But, yes, it lacks the rangefinder's ability to let one see action 'outside' the frame, but, that's always been one of the advantages of the rangefinder over the SLR.

 

Peter

 

I had a D2 and never manually focused with it. When it died and Leica was severely backlogged in repairs (months) I upgraded to the M8. So, I have plenty of lens choices for the G1.

[Riley]

dont want to be seen to nitpik but

in examining ISO from these cameras we need to be aware that they are not exact

this isnt to say that 4/3rds is suddenly a good low light camera, it isnt. They have not yet measured G1, but we have the results for E3, which is the best of 4/3rds on record at Dxo thus far.

 

indicated ISO above the line/measured ISO below the line

 

E3

ISO100/118, ISO200/227, ISO400/412, ISO800/804, ISO1600/1584, ISO3200/3052

 

D300

ISO200/145, ISO400/288, ISO800/571, ISO1600/1145, ISO3200/2063, ISO6400/4898

 

D90

ISO200/145, ISO400/292, ISO800/589, ISO1600/1125, ISO3200/2322, ISO6400/4438

 

D700

ISO200/162, ISO400/327, ISO800/651, ISO1600/1277, ISO3200/2566, ISO6400/4871, ISO12800/8436, ISO25600/14085

 

given that, not all is as it seems, is it.....

[Guest stnami]

Mind you the G1 is what should have followed the D2 but that's history now, I reckon a few maite owners will be buying the camera. The G1 will be an excellent teaching tool withit's auto and manual capabilities and receptive files in good light

[sean_reid]

Imteresting on the focus. I just put the CV75 and CV35 f2.5 on the G1 and was pretty shocked at how easy and fast it was to focus. Seeing outside the frame is a different issue

 

Hi Terry,

 

I also have found that the EVF on the G1 does work quite well for focus. But an RF is also much faster for me than an SLR.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

It's so funny today. I remember when we dealt with the grain of Tri-X and accepted it as its 'character'.

 

And then when T-max came out with its uniform grain structure there was great jubilation at its vast improvement (and higher ISO potential). But there was still noticeable grain (or noise) at ISO 400 but we accepted it and rejoiced at its smoothness over Tri-X (which by the way Kodak continued to produce because so many missed the 'character' of the old Tri-X that the new stuff had so effectively diminished with its cleaner, smoother images). And T-Max 3200? Fastest stuff on earth. But, again, with huge, honkin' rocks of grain the size of golf balls that made up the image that we again readily accepted and approved with great rejoicing. And yet today we complain of 'noise' in the shadows at ISO 1600 and up?

 

My how spoiled we've become.

 

According to Pop Photo at low ISO's (100 - 200), when it comes to noise, the G1 is currently without peer. Color-accuracy wise the G1 is without peer at every level (again according to Pop Photo). In my opinion, that's not too shabby for a first time at bat. Panasonic has been getting hammered for their noisy processors and A/D converters since the LX-1 and for the first time their Venus engine appears to be really humming. If the G1 and its current Venus HD engine are any indication, I've no doubt the next generation(s) will now address the upper ISO issues with aplomb offering us (hopefully) cleaner and cleaner images at the higher ISO's that we saw in the lower ones. And I look forward to that.

 

And now we can put venerable Solms glass on this thing?

 

Is this a great era in photography or what?

 

Peter

 

Hi Peter,

 

Did you happen to note if PopPhoto was testing JPEGs or converted RAW files?

 

As for high ISO, it clearly isn't important to everyone. But even with film I was often experimenting with ways of getting the best ISO reach from TMZ and I also pushed Tri-X with Accufine.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

 

Is this a great era in photography or what?

 

Peter

 

It is a great era in camera and lenses for sure.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Riley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

there is something odd about popphoto, you might want to read this Rockwell article about popphoto noise measurements.

 

Fallacies of Noise Measurements

[peterb]

Hi Sean,

 

I believe Pop Photo compares the noise in processed RAW images in their tests.

 

Ahhh accufine. there's a blast from the past.

 

And Imants, I agree. The G1 (which curiously has the same name as the late, wonderful rangefinder from Contax/Kyocera) is easily what the D3 or D4 (if there ever is going to be one..hmmmm) should have been.

 

Peter