howard_cummer Posted March 13, 2009 Share #21 Posted March 13, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Tim, I was rather surprised by your conclusions about the poor performance of wide angle M mount lenses on the G1. I received my Rayqual adapter in December from Japan and posted a series of photos here: Using M lenses on the Micro 4/3rds using a borrowed G1 and mounting my Leica M lenses from the 15mm CV all the way up to the 135 Elmar, including the 24 Elmarit and the Tri Elmar. As you can see from the photos I got quite an interesting series of what I consider to be usable photos - including one of my son in the corner of the frame - with the 15 Heliar. Perhaps we are comparing apples and oranges or my standards are less rigorous but my experience with my wide lenses comes to different conclusions than you have arrived at. It is not my intention at all to start some kind of flame war but just to add information based on my experience. Best Regards Howard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Hi howard_cummer, Take a look here Update for M8 users wanting G1 as backup. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
offshore Posted March 14, 2009 Share #22 Posted March 14, 2009 Depends. I think the G1 is a better camera than the G10 when using its kit lenses. It's only when trying to use it with the M8 lenses that it falls short. How many different lenses can you put on your G10... I will admit, though, that this news is very disappointing. I think the topic is M lenses on the G1. The G10 has 28-140 mm built in so unless I'm doing telephoto work that is really about all I need for most situations. It's not for everybody but it works very well as a backup for my purposes and is an excellent camera with a number of built in features that are not in the G1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Marks Posted March 14, 2009 Share #23 Posted March 14, 2009 Is there any chance that the G1's performance with the kit lenses is the result of pre-processing on-board the G1, in a similar way to how the Lumix LX3 is reputed to work to correct barrel distortion at the wide end of things? Does anyone know whether the kit lenses are giving lens-ID information to the camera? I just wonder, as it is counter intuitive that the Leica wides would not perform well. Just wondering . . . Ben Marks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted March 14, 2009 Share #24 Posted March 14, 2009 Tim, Many thanks for doing the hard work for us. It has made my mind up not get a GH1 (the new HD video capable model) but I may well still get one for my son for his post grad travel year, with the new 14-140 mm continuous auto-focus lens. I am pretty satisfied with quality from the RAW photos, that I took with my new small back up Ricoh GX200 (earlier GX100 relieved from my possession by family member), while I have been in Japan and Vietnam for the last few weeks, to the extent that I am now longer looking for any alternative M8 back-up. As it was raining heavily some days and I was not willing to risk the M8 in those conditions for a whole day at a time, without any opportunity to dry it properly, the Ricoh got more use than I had expected. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share #25 Posted March 14, 2009 Hi Tim,I was rather surprised by your conclusions about the poor performance of wide angle M mount lenses on the G1. I received my Rayqual adapter in December from Japan and posted a series of photos here: Using M lenses on the Micro 4/3rds using a borrowed G1 and mounting my Leica M lenses from the 15mm CV all the way up to the 135 Elmar, including the 24 Elmarit and the Tri Elmar. As you can see from the photos I got quite an interesting series of what I consider to be usable photos - including one of my son in the corner of the frame - with the 15 Heliar. Perhaps we are comparing apples and oranges or my standards are less rigorous but my experience with my wide lenses comes to different conclusions than you have arrived at. It is not my intention at all to start some kind of flame war but just to add information based on my experience. Best Regards Howard Hi Howard, No flame taken, I'm cool. These things are very personal and as your shots demonstrate, in many real-life situations these weaknesses will simply not show up. It's my way to test all lens/body combos with charts so I know what I can and can't get away with - and there are certainly shots where these characteristics would be creatively useful or at least not important. But I do believe that for me, if I wanted a shot that was sharp across the frame, I wouldn't use an M lens shorter than 50mm on the G1. Of course I do have a different (cameraquest) adaptor... Best T Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share #26 Posted March 14, 2009 Is there any chance that the G1's performance with the kit lenses is the result of pre-processing on-board the G1, in a similar way to how the Lumix LX3 is reputed to work to correct barrel distortion at the wide end of things? Does anyone know whether the kit lenses are giving lens-ID information to the camera? I just wonder, as it is counter intuitive that the Leica wides would not perform well. Just wondering . . . Ben Marks Ben, another thread here (possibly one of mine) has already shown that something along these lines is indeed going on. But it is not counter intuitive: sensors are not film. They have entirely different characteristics depending on the angles at which they receive light and the M8 sensor had to be very carefully designed so as to work so well with the M wides. The G1 sensor has been designed to work in combination with rather different sorts of lenses. Everyone interested in this should read Sean Reid's review, which covers this in some depth and is definitive. He also found the same as me with the 28 Cron. Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted March 14, 2009 Share #27 Posted March 14, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I would point out that the GH1 a) uses a different sensor from the G1 and in shooting video uses a 16:9 strip across of the middle (not including the sensor corners), downrezzed to HDTV format (about a 2 Mpixel image per frame). That, plus the inherent "movement" of video, (each frame only visible for 1/24 or 1/60 sec.) means the M lenses of any focal length may work just fine for video. "May" is the operative word - I'd think the GH1 would be worth testing on its own, for both stills and video. Probably not much different for stills - but without a test we can't assume. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted March 14, 2009 Share #28 Posted March 14, 2009 Is there any chance that the G1's performance with the kit lenses is the result of pre-processing on-board the G1, in a similar way to how the Lumix LX3 is reputed to work to correct barrel distortion at the wide end of things? Does anyone know whether the kit lenses are giving lens-ID information to the camera? I just wonder, as it is counter intuitive that the Leica wides would not perform well. Just wondering . . . Ben Marks Hi Ben, It isn't the lenses per se. It is an interaction of certain lenses and a body that was not designed for them. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted March 14, 2009 Share #29 Posted March 14, 2009 Everyone interested in this should read Sean Reid's review, which covers this in some depth and is definitive. He also found the same as me with the 28 Cron. Tim Thank you Tim. What the various results continue to suggest is that the G1 can act as an interesting sort of "tele-extender" for longer RF lenses (as I've written before). I think that usage has particular promise. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted March 14, 2009 Share #30 Posted March 14, 2009 Is there any chance that the G1's performance with the kit lenses is the result of pre-processing on-board the G1, in a similar way to how the Lumix LX3 is reputed to work to correct barrel distortion at the wide end of things? ... Interesting thought, Ben. I don't know, but I don't think that's the case. Remember, on their ACR and DNG Converter download pages, Adobe has a couple paragraphs about the adjustments they have to make for the D-Lux 4 and the LX3 and for some other Panasonic cameras where Panasonic first tried out the idea. If Adobe supports the G1 and if they don't mention it among the cameras for which they need to produce a de-mosaicked DNG file, then I'm sure it doesn't do something like that. Keep in mind also that it's a lot easier to build software correction into cameras with fixed lenses than into those that accept interchangeable lenses, so my guess is that Panasonic would avoid doing that on their first or second venture into the field. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arif Posted March 14, 2009 Share #31 Posted March 14, 2009 Thank you Tim. What the various results continue to suggest is that the G1 can act as an interesting sort of "tele-extender" for longer RF lenses (as I've written before). I think that usage has particular promise. Cheers, Sean Thank you Tim, What Sean said was one of the things that was of interest to me. I like the 75 lux and the Nocti in many situations and the G1 would allow me to get some more mileage e.g. wedding shots. However, I think I will wait a little more. Thank you again for taking the time to answer my questions. Arif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted March 14, 2009 Share #32 Posted March 14, 2009 Interesting thought, Ben. I don't know, but I don't think that's the case. Remember, on their ACR and DNG Converter download pages, Adobe has a couple paragraphs about the adjustments they have to make for the D-Lux 4 and the LX3 and for some other Panasonic cameras where Panasonic first tried out the idea. If Adobe supports the G1 and if they don't mention it among the cameras for which they need to produce a de-mosaicked DNG file, then I'm sure it doesn't do something like that. Keep in mind also that it's a lot easier to build software correction into cameras with fixed lenses than into those that accept interchangeable lenses, so my guess is that Panasonic would avoid doing that on their first or second venture into the field. G1 preprocesses all jpeg files coming from all panasonic m4/3 lens. Silkypix and Adobe Raw/Lightroom preprocess also RAW files invisibly to the user (it is very controversial but apparently will be changed and optional with the next release). The goal is to improve lens performance and get rid of distortions. Both body and Pana lenses have CPU's that communicate and coordinate aperture, focussing, stabilization and carry info of lens type and current settings. Hence the astounding performance of the kit lens out of the box. Frankly it doesn't make sense to put Leica lens on G1 because they don't produce much better IQ than when mounted on...M8. IMHO. At least in the kit lens coverage of 14-45mm (FF equiv). Signature and bokeh are another story of course. Also the 45-200 Pana G1 lens is not as great as the 14-45mm one. (I have both). But I'd have great hopes for the 7-14 and 20/1.7. The 7-14 is set to cost...ca 1000 euro! That's best Zuiko level and I think it must deliver for the money. There is also a talk about 45mm/2.8 macro, which would be interesting. Actually the only M lens out of the ones I have I found worth putting on the G1 is Hexanon 60/1.2. (my longest M lens) PS It was discussed here (from page 27): http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/73949-dreaded-comparison-thread-g1-m8-2-a-27.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted March 14, 2009 Share #33 Posted March 14, 2009 Sometimes the simplest side-by-side shots can say more than a thousand words. I found Howard's hedge/woodland comparison shots (at largest size), most interesting: opening them in separate tabs and switching back and forth showed the incredibly greater dimensionality of the M8 image, and the subtle detail and depth the camera can produce. In this comparison at least (by no means definitive) the detailed rendering of the M8 is much more 'alive' than the rather flat, more 'digital'-looking G1. PS: I'm not usually one for talking up the M8 files, as many here know. But sometimes the superior rendering is obvious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted March 14, 2009 Share #34 Posted March 14, 2009 G1 preprocesses all jpeg files coming from all panasonic m4/3 lens... You're right! I answered without checking the Adobe downloads page as I suggested Ben might want to do. The G1 is indeed listed there as one of the cameras whose DNGs require de-mosaicking. So, Ben, I was wrong. You are quite correct that the G1 supplies additional processing for its lenses (as several others here have also pointed out). The logic in my post is good and I admitted of the possibility; but I could have skipped the post entirely if I had checked the facts first! Thanks, nugat--I've now got another fact to file in my bucket! That's another insight that makes the camera even more desirable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grober Posted March 14, 2009 Share #35 Posted March 14, 2009 I don't deny the brillance fo the Panasonic designers with this new Micro Four Thirds product but I'm having trouble wrapping my habits around the concept of the G1 acting as a "back-up" to any M. With the Leica M, I see and frame the world through a clear window pane; with the G1, I'm looking at a tiny TV screen, right? Until I can justify another M8, my backup is another M with film in its inward parts. (I have a Nikon film scanner.) -g Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEBnewyork Posted March 14, 2009 Share #36 Posted March 14, 2009 OK, I will post some shots here but also at PMA Panasonic was showing a mFT/M adapter. I asked about the problems with wide lenses. I was told that if they launch the adapter it will work. So, it got me back to thinking again. We know that Panasonic makes lens corrections and using Silkypix/LR/ACR all have these corrections baked in. Is it possible that some of the problem can be solved by turning off the lens corrections? Next up some shots with various lens.... The new Noctilux at PMA was going for close focus...excuse the subjects LOL First two wide open. Third one f2.8 Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/79316-update-for-m8-users-wanting-g1-as-backup/?do=findComment&comment=840686'>More sharing options...
TEBnewyork Posted March 14, 2009 Share #37 Posted March 14, 2009 One from this morning with 75 cron. Certainly not an award winning shot but..... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/79316-update-for-m8-users-wanting-g1-as-backup/?do=findComment&comment=840700'>More sharing options...
nugat Posted March 14, 2009 Share #38 Posted March 14, 2009 I don't deny the brillance fo the Panasonic designers with this new Micro Four Thirds product but I'm having trouble wrapping my habits around the concept of the G1 acting as a "back-up" to any M. With the Leica M, I see and frame the world through a clear window pane; with the G1, I'm looking at a tiny TV screen, right? Until I can justify another M8, my backup is another M with film in its inward parts. (I have a Nikon film scanner.) -g The Oscar for cinematography for "Slumdog Millionaire" went to a guy looking at a "tiny TV screen". Actually SI2000k digital cine camera OLED is no better than G1 VF. I guess it's not what you look through, it's what you see that counts... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted March 14, 2009 Share #39 Posted March 14, 2009 The Oscar for cinematography for "Slumdog Millionaire" went to a guy looking at a "tiny TV screen". Actually SI2000k digital cine camera OLED is no better than G1 VF. I guess it's not what you look through, it's what you see that counts... I believe only parts of the film were shot with those cameras. And moving images is very different from still. Even film movie cameras don't have anywhere near the brightness vf's of an M or modern dslr (because you are seeing the shutter flicker at 24 fps). You aren't waiting for that decisive moment with motion picture, plus you have somebody with an external screen to pull/check focus for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted March 14, 2009 Share #40 Posted March 14, 2009 I believe only parts of the film were shot with those cameras. And moving images is very different from still. Even film movie cameras don't have anywhere near the brightness vf's of an M or modern dslr (because you are seeing the shutter flicker at 24 fps). You aren't waiting for that decisive moment with motion picture, plus you have somebody with an external screen to pull/check focus for you. You are right, parts of the film. You seem to believe that viewfinders make great pictures. I know some good filmmakers that can make a film without a camera. And please... this "decisive moment" HCB nonsense. As many, if not more good pictures were taken at the "indecisive moment". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.