[deadwolfbones]

Oh, you're so persecuted.

Frankly you're sounding just as defensive as the supposed and actual Pentax fanboys up in here, if not moreso.

G1 certainly has its plusses (size/weight/ease of use/solid design), but its image quality cannot stand up to the K20D or K200D (or even my K100D) in 95+% of circumstances. I say this as someone who has used all of the above extensively.

Whatev...

[Kunzite]

er1ksen, how about a group of people who tried the G1 and weren't that impressed?
Not that it's a bad camera; it's just overpriced, and the image quality is not as good - that's why I was asking, in which ways it can "outdo" the K20D/21 Limited combo. As much as you like that little toy, you shouldn't suppose that all those who dare not to like it didn't even tried it, nor to make fun of them. That's an Oly/Pana fanboy task

[nostatic]

I wish I could tell you, but I'm having a hell of a time getting the Panasonic .RW2 format to do anything on my system. In Lightroom 2.2 and SilkyPix (which shipped with the camera) the images show up fine in thumbnail mode and as soon as I actually load them they go black. It's the weirdest damn thing. I had the same problem with the FX-150 when I reviewed that one, too.

Try RawDeveloper from Irident. It will handle the format, and frankly does a better job "developing" raw files than most other software that I've tried. I have used Capture1 (hate the interface and workflow), Aperture (my main catalog and PP) and now got RD to deal with the raw files from my DLux4. I like the look. All of the various raw developers have a slightly different approach both from a UI perspective as well as what you tend to get for an output. It is subtle but noticeable.

[deadwolfbones]

Try RawDeveloper from Irident. It will handle the format, and frankly does a better job "developing" raw files than most other software that I've tried. I have used Capture1 (hate the interface and workflow), Aperture (my main catalog and PP) and now got RD to deal with the raw files from my DLux4. I like the look. All of the various raw developers have a slightly different approach both from a UI perspective as well as what you tend to get for an output. It is subtle but noticeable.

Thanks, but unfortunately I'm a PC user and RawDeveloper seems to be Mac-only?

[nostatic]

Oh, you're so persecuted.

Frankly you're sounding just as defensive as the supposed and actual Pentax fanboys up in here, if not moreso.

G1 certainly has its plusses (size/weight/ease of use/solid design), but its image quality cannot stand up to the K20D or K200D (or even my K100D) in 95+% of circumstances. I say this as someone who has used all of the above extensively.

Whatev...

Defensive? Mostly just annoyed when someone puts words in my mouth and then says "please go home now." I should know better than to argue on the interwebs though...mea culpa.

Again, I never said that the G1 is the equal of the K20d. I said that a in a few shots it outdid the K20d. There is a difference. People seem to be reading their own "attack" into what I wrote.

The G1 is *very* good at what it is. It is not a replacement for some of what you might need a dSLR to do, but my guess is that it would be a better fit for some. And in my brief messing with the camera, I found the metering and AF to be superior to the Pentax in low light. That doesn't mean I can't get a better image out of the K20d, but frankly I have to pay attention to what I'm doing.

And I'm not sure how I'm being considered a G1 fanboy. I actually own/shoot Pentax. But I'm not blind to other systems. I could see a place for u4/3 in my style of shooting, as it is small/light/unobtrusive and gives iq that is a notch above a small sensor. I wouldn't do product shots or want to print 4'x5' with it, but I don't do that anyway. I do often print 24"x36" from my K20d (and p&s for that matter), often with quite good results. Specs don't tell the whole story...

[er1kksen]

er1ksen, how about a group of people who tried the G1 and weren't that impressed?
Not that it's a bad camera; it's just overpriced, and the image quality is not as good - that's why I was asking, in which ways it can "outdo" the K20D/21 Limited combo. As much as you like that little toy, you shouldn't suppose that all those who dare not to like it didn't even tried it, nor to make fun of them. That's an Oly/Pana fanboy task

I never said anyone who disliked it had clearly never tried it, I stated that many who had tried it liked it a lot. Just balancing out the statements that many others here who have tried it did not. I was a little sarcastic, admittedly, but sometimes some thinly veiled hyperbole helps get the point across, if not taken too seriously.

Oly/Pana fanboy? Who knows. I've been known to be accused of being a fanboy of Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, Sony, and even occasionally Canon and Nikon in the past. For the record, I moved from film pentax to film oly to film yashica to canon compact to Oly DSLR and soon to Pentax DSLR. Heck, I've shot with a few old sears cameras, and I tend to be more likely to defend any given brand/product than tear it down. And yes, I do like the G1, whether it's a "toy" or not depends on the user, I suspect. I also suspect that someone who knows their way around both the K200D and G1 could get equal results out of both (with kit lenses) in most cases, which are both going for about the same price currently (assuming you get your G1 through one of the ebay stores). And yes, I suspect there are situations in which it could be just as useful or moreso than a K20D. Again, no one said it was straight out better than any other specific camera.

[nostatic]

I also suspect that someone who knows their way around both the K200D and G1 could get equal results out of both (with kit lenses) in most cases, which are both going for about the same price currently (assuming you get your G1 through one of the ebay stores). And yes, I suspect there are situations in which it could be just as useful or moreso than a K20D. Again, no one said it was straight out better than any other specific camera.

It will always be the nut behind the wheel that determines the image, but technology is certainly leveling the playing field wrt the technical aspects of taking pictures. I'm content to let the camera figure out most everything, and the only time I'll change something is if I'm not getting what I'm seeing. What the camera cannot do in any way, shape, or form, is composition of the shot. And that is to me, what most of the "art" is these days. That and post processing.

There are different reasons that people get into photography. For some, it is to play with gadgets and delve into technical minutae. For others, it is trying to document something and maybe make a living doing it. For others it is an attempt at communication and art. There isn't really a wrong or right reason for taking photographs. I think one of the main problems on the interwebs is that these different users often collide and bring different expectations, varying needs, and certainly different desires. While the over-riding goal may be to make "better pictures," what that entails can vary wildly.

Frankly I'm a fairly recent convert to using visual means to create art and/or communicate. I'm certainly not classically trained in it, but have an odd background that is part science and part art (mostly music for 40 or so years). In the past I've been hung up on gear in a variety of areas (mostly sound/music/audio, but also computing, bicycles, race cars, etc). At some point I began to realize that I needed to find something different to chase. And once I got back into shooting pictures a few years ago, I slowly moved away from technical and more towards trying to find *my* aesthetic. Happily in the last year I seem to have done just that though much work remains. I still catch myself believing that the grass is greener (lusting after an a900 and Zeiss glass), and will pull out the magnifying loupe a few too many times instead of just looking at the image and seeing if I feel what I saw. It is a constant battle, because we want things to be "perfect", hence the pixel peeping and keeping up with the Jonses. But there is no perfect, and you can only create what you see/feel. All the pixels and all the f-stops in the world can't help you if you don't see it in the first place. And imho that takes a lot of practice.

[jsherman999]

Well spoken, nostatic.

It seems (from images/discussion here and elsewhere) that the most accurate classification for the G1 is: The Ultimate Bridge Camera (which is a compliment.)

Panasonic is incredibly innovative, but I don't know if this sensor iteration is quite there yet. I have a TZ3, and at ISO 100 outdoors, with that little Leica-branded piece of glass - it looks DSLR-like. ISO 250+, and it falls away fast. This G1 is better from the reviews I've read, but it's not looking like The One. (It Might be The One's granddad, though.)

Can't wait for the G2 or G3!

That being said, in a moment of weakness, I could see myself buying this sexy G1.

[Slowpoke Rodriguez]

I've read over most of what nostatic has said, and I don't see what was so inflamatory as to induce the spears chucked his direction. We all shoot with at least one Pentax camera or we wouldn't be here in the first place. No one needs to be "outed." If someone likes one camera for X, Y, or Z application more than I do, so be it. It never feels threatening to me.

This thread has now gone pretty far afield. The category is Pentax News and Rumors. If only there was some Pentax news of late......

[Kunzite]

er1kksen, I didn't said you are an Oly/Pana fanboy. Just... why the sarcasm? We only wanted from Nostatic to back up one of his statements which doesn't really fit with our experience, that's all - is this such a bad thing? Aren't we allowed to do so?
And Nostatic started to add few details to his statement. So, it's not the image quality (I hope he won't say it is! - even if he posted pictures that supposedly were to "prove" something), nor about camera capabilities for an advanced user. It seems, easy to use in it's most automated mode and the AF in low light (I don't know, I didn't tried the G1 in low light - but it has an AF-assist lamp, right?) would be the G1's advantages.
And btw, my only real issue with the G1 is it's price. Here, it's closer to the K20D than to the K200D (let's not even talk about the K-m!).

[vinzer]

Nostatic, it appears that you've run into a group who feels that the G1 can not, no way no how, even approach the performance of a DSLR. Resistance is futile. There's clearly no way any device stuffed full of innovative technology and a DSLR-sized sensor, and widely praised by people who've tried them and found them comparable to similarly-priced devices, could possibly be any better than an inexpensive compact. Certainly not on par with (in some situations) a camera with a full-fledged optical mirror or prism viewfinder. Give in.

God forbid any camera would overtake the mighty Pentax! Haha, I kid. But having bounced around from brand to brand, like you, I've come to appreciate any new technology or idea coming from any brand. I'm just honestly curious as to the context of nostatic's statement, which said that the G1 trumps the K20D/31mm Ltd combo in some instances (not to worry, nostatic, my friend, I did not miss the "some" qualifier in what you said). He meant that it focuses better in low light than Pentax. No surprise there, really, at least for me.

True. While I'm at it, I should just toss out my DLux4 (and smash up my old Dlux3, which took most of the photos in my Hong Kong set) as there is no way that it can hold a candle to a dSLR. I have been absorbed. All our limiteds are belong to us.

Oh, but the FF offerings from Sony and Canikon are overpriced and don't deliver either. Obviously Pentax, especially the 10mp CCD iterations, are the pinnacle

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the G1. You actually handled yourself pretty well a couple of posts back there. Kudos.

Anyway, I do think Samsung's sensor is the clearer winner over the Sony 10MP job, though by no means am I dissing the Sony sensor (I'm still using it, anyway).

I'm testing a G1 right now for a review and while it's a fun camera to use, it suffers from typical Panasonic problems (i.e., excessive image noise/noise reduction smearing), albeit less so than their point & shoots (which you'd expect given the much, much lower pixel density). I'm not too impressed with the kit lens, and I really miss the viewfinder, though the articulated screen is very nice. The EVF is crap, as always.

It can produce some nice looking images (cf. the shot of the glass from nostatic), but just check out the noise issues in the photo above that one.

Certainly not worth $800.

edit: and I certainly don't see how it's any more uncomplicated than a K200D or K20D on Auto.

I've gotta try that EVF. It's getting mixed reviews. But I do agree that Panasonic's image processing pipeline (is it still another incarnation of the Venus engine?) is one of the worse ones in the industry, which makes me hesitant to get the G1 (along with no in-body stabilization and the price) and wait for Olympus' take on it instead.

Defensive? Mostly just annoyed when someone puts words in my mouth and then says "please go home now." I should know better than to argue on the interwebs though...mea culpa.

Again, I never said that the G1 is the equal of the K20d. I said that a in a few shots it outdid the K20d. There is a difference. People seem to be reading their own "attack" into what I wrote.

The G1 is *very* good at what it is. It is not a replacement for some of what you might need a dSLR to do, but my guess is that it would be a better fit for some. And in my brief messing with the camera, I found the metering and AF to be superior to the Pentax in low light. That doesn't mean I can't get a better image out of the K20d, but frankly I have to pay attention to what I'm doing.

And I'm not sure how I'm being considered a G1 fanboy. I actually own/shoot Pentax. But I'm not blind to other systems. I could see a place for u4/3 in my style of shooting, as it is small/light/unobtrusive and gives iq that is a notch above a small sensor. I wouldn't do product shots or want to print 4'x5' with it, but I don't do that anyway. I do often print 24"x36" from my K20d (and p&s for that matter), often with quite good results. Specs don't tell the whole story...

The G1 should do well as a street shooter. Small, unintrusive, and I think the blue or red models would even be more ignored by people who're used to associating big black DSLRs as professional cameras.

And I'm pretty sure the G1 can do 24"x36" prints, as long as the shooter gets it right, which is the case with all cameras, regardless of brand.

My ideal m4/3 camera would be something like Olympus has shown as a prototype, along with their 25mm pancake, and a flexible viewfinder turret accessory on top, much like how rangefinders were way back. Of course, it's a given that Olympus will include in-body stabilization with their iteration, as well.

But no orange color for me, please. I'd rather Olympus go retro and do a black and chrome color scheme for it.

Well spoken, nostatic.

It seems (from images/discussion here and elsewhere) that the most accurate classification for the G1 is: The Ultimate Bridge Camera (which is a compliment.)

Panasonic is incredibly innovative, but I don't know if this sensor iteration is quite there yet. I have a TZ3, and at ISO 100 outdoors, with that little Leica-branded piece of glass - it looks DSLR-like. ISO 250+, and it falls away fast. This G1 is better from the reviews I've read, but it's not looking like The One. (It Might be The One's granddad, though.)

Can't wait for the G2 or G3!

That being said, in a moment of weakness, I could see myself buying this sexy G1.

Hold off for Olympus' take, I think. I rather like Olympus' image processing pipeline better, I'm expecting in-body stabilization, and Olympus, while not the best in terms of pricing their products, do have a better understanding of good pricing compared to Panasonic.

The new sensor seems to have improved over the 10MP NMOS sensor Panasonic was providing 4/3 cameras recently. I'm not seeing the patterned noise of the old E-510 I used to have at high ISOs, though this may be a function of Panasonic's image processing, too.

The new sensor seems to have improved over the 10MP NMOS sensor Panasonic was providing 4/3 cameras recently. I'm not seeing the patterned noise of the old E-510 I used to have at high ISOs, though this may be a function of Panasonic's image processing, too.

The only problem I see in this debate is the fact that Pana/Oly is stuck with this 12Mp sensor as their 2009 offering and God knows what we will get from Pentax/Samsung in only some weeks/couple of months away . This I think is the real match up not the new Pana camera versus the current Pentax models. If the price holds for the G1 it will battle the K300D that I expect to be significantly better than K200D and most likely smaller (plus vs the G1 with ws, SR of a new incarnation, improved sensor whatever this will be and so on).

G1 looks like a compact replacement except for the fact is not that compact to boot and makes no movies (which is bad for both the target audience and the asking price). And like Kunzite said in our country the price is equal to K20D kit, 50% more than K-m dual kit and almost the same as K-m kit + DA17-70.

Regards,
Radu

[er1kksen]

er1kksen, I didn't said you are an Oly/Pana fanboy. Just... why the sarcasm? We only wanted from Nostatic to back up one of his statements which doesn't really fit with our experience, that's all - is this such a bad thing? Aren't we allowed to do so?
And Nostatic started to add few details to his statement. So, it's not the image quality (I hope he won't say it is! - even if he posted pictures that supposedly were to "prove" something), nor about camera capabilities for an advanced user. It seems, easy to use in it's most automated mode and the AF in low light (I don't know, I didn't tried the G1 in low light - but it has an AF-assist lamp, right?) would be the G1's advantages.
And btw, my only real issue with the G1 is it's price. Here, it's closer to the K20D than to the K200D (let's not even talk about the K-m!).

It seemed to me that many posters were overreacting to nostatic's posts. Sarcasm is meant to lighten the tone a bit. I'm kind of new to this forum, so maybe the populace here is a little more hostile to good-natured rib-digging. If I find that people take issue with a bit of sarcasm, I can always drop it. Maybe I should have added an "I kid" like vinzer.

jsherman, you can be sure that the G1 sensor is vastly better than the one in your TZ3. The 4/3 sensors are really much closer to APS-C sensors in performance than they are to compact sensors.

[nostatic]

I haven't looked at any raw files from the G1, but the in-camera jpg looks reasonable. The Venus engine has gotten better (I have an old FZ20 that has fairly miserable IQ) but that still seems to be a challenge for Panasonic. I have the Leica variants of the LX2/LX3 and supposedly Leica tweaks that firmware so I can't say how good Venus III or IV is. I generally shoot raw with those though so it isn't that big of a deal either way.

I still don't like EVFs, though this one is better than previous ones. I do think that the G1 is technologically superior to the Km/K200d, but as I've said before, technology doesn't necessarily equate to better pictures. The Pentax advantage is the glass, which of course can't be underestimated. The K20d is a lot more camera than the G1 (better sensor and easier access to manual controls among other things), but again if size is an issue...

G1 vs K300 will be interesting indeed, but by then the G2 (or whatever the next u4/3 variant is called) will be out, will do video, and who knows what else. In this fight Panny has advantages and disadvantages. They don't have a rich SLR history, so in some sense they are free to go a different route. They don't have to worry about legacy glass, etc. Plus they have the whole video side of things to draw from. As still and video converge (D90, 5Dmk2 etc), it will be tough for the "pure camera" companies to cope. To me that is where the interesting battle lies, and where companies like Pentax will either have to forge new alliances (JVC?) or be happy with niche markets.

[GaryM]

I've read over most of what nostatic has said, and I don't see what was so inflamatory as to induce the spears chucked his direction. We all shoot with at least one Pentax camera or we wouldn't be here in the first place. No one needs to be "outed." If someone likes one camera for X, Y, or Z application more than I do, so be it. It never feels threatening to me.

I wouldn't call it 'chucking spears', but claiming that the G1, with a smaller, lower resolution sensor and a zoom lens, outperforms a K20D with the FA31, one of the best lenses ever made, is bound to raise a few eyebrows at least. That the G1 is a pretty neat camera was not really in dispute.

This thread has now gone pretty far afield. The category is Pentax News and Rumors. If only there was some Pentax news of late......

Of course: if there is to be any 'chucking of spears' they need to be directed at Pentax!