Reidreviews.com on G1

[SJP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can't seem to quote messages after this latest forum update.

click "zitieren"

 

or use the [ QUOTE = test1; postnumber ]test2[ QUOTE ] and remove the spaces

test2

[sean_reid]

click "zitieren"

 

or use the [ QUOTE = test1; postnumber ]test2[ QUOTE ] and remove the spaces

 

Thanks. I did end up figuring it out after that post. Buttons in English (for this version of the forum) would be nice.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[ljclark]

maybe Panasonic included a software corner softener for third party lenses to make people buy original lenses:eek:

 

That is just SO evil! I love it!!

[sean_reid]

Sean,

 

The images that appear to be reversed are the pair right after the ISO heading, B&W G1 on left and M8 on right but image on right is far more magnified than one on left.

 

Hi John,

 

Thanks. I had checked all the pics in the ISO noise section and hadn't seen the error in the ISO accuracy section. I just made a new and table and appreciate your "heads up".

 

The core idea, however, is this: Both of those exposures were made at F/8 at 1/4 second at a nominal ISO 160. The lighting and subject remains fixed of course. Looking at the grey on the WhiBal card, there's about a ten point spread between the RGB numbers for the G1 and the M8 (as I said in the review). That's a small difference but not a major one and certainly not as pronounced as you were suggesting with the DXO numbers.

 

Moreover...one could argue that the slightly brighter tones (on center at least because there's also a bit of light fall-off in the G1 samples) work the camera's advantage in the ISO tables *because* each tone is coming in at a higher S/N ratio than it would have had the file been darker.

 

In other words, I feel the results paint quite an accurate picture of the sensitivity of those two cameras under the test lighting.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[peterb]

Just finished reading Sean R's (typically) most enlightening review.

 

Edge anomalies aside (for lenses the G1 was clearly never designed and as Sean has suggested this needs to be fleshed out with other lenses and other focal lengths) the bottom line is that the it appears that at $700 (with a rather nice albeit slow lens, no less) and shooting at ISO's from 100 - 800 (and possibly up as high as 1600 particularly in BW) the G1 is one helluva camera.

 

Peter

[frank_dernie]

Leica had said that there would be no digital M since M lenses were not suited to digital sensors, and it took the Epson RD1 to force them, thankfully, to bring out the M8. All of the M8 "problems" stem fron the unsuitability of the M lenses for a current technology digital sensor, so despite the clever mods to the micro lens pitch and restriction to a 1:1.33 sensor there are the well known issues. It should come as no surprise to those who have followed this discussion for the past 8 years or so that Leica rangefinder lenses are not suitable for (unmodified current technology) digital sensors!

Having said that, hopefully the longer the lens gets the less this unsuitability impacts, so a 50 f1 may work well. I just bought a G1. When I can get an adapter I will try it with a few M lenses long and short. I am unlikely to do this in a rigorous enough way to satisfy the more pedantic on the list, so don't expect a review :-)

I am looking forward to actually viewing through the Noctilux albeit via an electronic finder.

Frank

[marknorton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I haven't seen Sean's results but I don't doubt they are valid. My own results, though by no means as rigorous, show the edge performance is not great, I'm hoping for better things with newer wide-angles which may have been designed to make life easier for the sensor.

 

We maybe shouldn't be surprised. When the IR problem surfaced, Leica were at pains to point out that extra layers between the lens and sensor impact the IQ so the combination of thin cover glass, no IR or LP filter and a customised microlens array were all required to knock the basic Kodak sensor into shape. The Panasonic sensor was not designed for M lenses so perhaps we are seeing (any firmware issues aside) what Leica was talking about.

 

Things get distinctly better with longer lenses and the interest in the G1 for me is the through the lens focussing, as well as macro. Type putting a Leica OUFRO between lens and adapter to see what I mean. It's about the same thickness as the macro adapater used with the 90mm Elmar.

[sean_reid]

I'm in the possibly unique position of being able to test a "rangefinder" design lens on a 4:3 camera other than the G1. As some here know, I have been using the (now NLA) Nikon F-mount versions of the CV 12mm and 15mm lenses on my DMC-L1 for nearly two years now and I have not noticed any of the problems Sean observed in his G1 review with either of them (provided they're stopped down to F8, that is, as there is a bit of softness in the corners when they're used wide-open). As I understand it, the optical elements of these F-mount CV lenses are identical to the LTM versions, the only difference being that they're recessed into the mount in order to position them at the proper flange-to-sensor distance when mounted on a Nikon F body.

 

Since the L1 doesn't (to my knowledge) rely upon RAW processing software to correct lens distortions and uses a similar sensor design as the G1, perhaps it would be possible to isolate the effects of the software by comparing RAW images shot with the same lenses on both the L1 and G1?

 

I would volunteer to do this myself, but I've let Mike Johnston at TOP borrow my G1, so it's out of my hands at the moment, but I may be persuaded to make my lenses available to Sean (or someone else similarly qualified) if they wish to pursue this.

 

Let's talk in April. That might be interesting.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Leica had said that there would be no digital M since M lenses were not suited to digital sensors, and it took the Epson RD1 to force them, thankfully, to bring out the M8. All of the M8 "problems" stem fron the unsuitability of the M lenses for a current technology digital sensor, so despite the clever mods to the micro lens pitch and restriction to a 1:1.33 sensor there are the well known issues. It should come as no surprise to those who have followed this discussion for the past 8 years or so that Leica rangefinder lenses are not suitable for (unmodified current technology) digital sensors!

Having said that, hopefully the longer the lens gets the less this unsuitability impacts, so a 50 f1 may work well. I just bought a G1. When I can get an adapter I will try it with a few M lenses long and short. I am unlikely to do this in a rigorous enough way to satisfy the more pedantic on the list, so don't expect a review :-)

I am looking forward to actually viewing through the Noctilux albeit via an electronic finder.

Frank

 

"Pedantic" seems to be becoming one of the new Internet buzz phrases. If doing testing, research, etc. rigorously is pedantic than your list of pedants is going to be awfully long. And if you ever have a major medical operation done, I'll wager you'll be glad the research that informed the procedure was done by "pedants".

[sean_reid]

I haven't seen Sean's results but I don't doubt they are valid. My own results, though by no means as rigorous, show the edge performance is not great, I'm hoping for better things with newer wide-angles which may have been designed to make life easier for the sensor.

 

We maybe shouldn't be surprised. When the IR problem surfaced, Leica were at pains to point out that extra layers between the lens and sensor impact the IQ so the combination of thin cover glass, no IR or LP filter and a customised microlens array were all required to knock the basic Kodak sensor into shape. The Panasonic sensor was not designed for M lenses so perhaps we are seeing (any firmware issues aside) what Leica was talking about.

 

 

That's almost exactly what my sense is too and I wrote similar comments in the review.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean