Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-16-2009, 01:04 PM   #46
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Colorado USA
Posts: 1,337
The test shows GH1 with Oly glass mounted.

The test shows GH1 with Oly glass mounted getting its butt kicked.

I wonder why they chose oly glass instead of panasonic's own glass?

Seems to me the test is flawed.

But its still nice to see any test and included comments from people wondering the same, "why use olympus glass on GH1?"


QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
So far, impressed with the Panasonic GH1 in all respects except optics, which are quite frankly poor. Would love to see Pentax show them how to do it.

Now which sensor do you think Pentax would use? Samsung? Probably though I strongly suspect Sony has a customer CMOS sensor waiting in the wings for their own movie mode SLRs.


09-16-2009, 01:10 PM   #47
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by Samsungian Quote
The test shows GH1 with Oly glass mounted getting its butt kicked.

I wonder why they chose oly glass instead of panasonic's own glass?

Seems to me the test is flawed.

But its still nice to see any test and included comments from people wondering the same, "why use olympus glass on GH1?"
No sign the Panny glass is much better.
09-16-2009, 01:11 PM   #48
Pentaxian
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Staten Island, NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,672
QuoteOriginally posted by Angevinn Quote
If Pentax does produce an EVIL camera I hope that the camera will have an APS-C sensor or for something truly awesome; a FF digital sensor.

I would steer clear of Kodak (one of the creators of the 4/3 format) and the Micro 4/3 sensor. Kodak has a track record of flops, (Disc Film, Film Processing Kiosks, APS film). I know Kodak is producing the sensor for the new Leica M9, but it is a CCD sensor. Kodak shut down its own CMOS development department. Even Stefan Daniel of Leica acknowledged that video and Live View are not possible with the Kodak FF sensor. Panasonic and Olympus are able to achieve both video and Live View with their M 4/3 sensor though. Partnering with Samsung on the NX would be a better idea because the sensor is a CMOS APS-C; a similar sensor to what is in the Pentax K-7.

There was a shoot out/review of the Sigma DP2 versus the Panasonic GH1 with the Olympus M. Zuiko 17mm f/2.8 lens. The Sigma drank Panasonic's milkshake.

The review is here:

Sigma DP2 Shootout Pt. 2 - Detailed Scene

I believe the Sigma clobbered the Panasonic on two fronts. The Sigma features an APS-C sized sensor but it also appears that the Sigma has the better lens.

A Pentax EVIL system would be cool, just not a Micro 4/3 sensor based system.
Keep in mind that the 17mm pancake is pretty much the weakest (optically speaking) of the m4/3 lenses so far, along with perhaps the 45-200. The 20mm is expected to be quite a bit better.

That said, where did you get the conclusion that the DP2 "drinks the Panasonic's milkshake"? The first set of crops (which could have led to this belief) shown was provided merely to show differences in results due to different processing. Scrolling down to the ACTUAL test crops, the Panasonic has clearly better performance in the center, while the DP2 does better in the corners. Stopped down, they're about the same on the edges.

All this says is that the 17mm is a mediocre piece of glass and that the GH1 has potential for better resolution than the DP2. Add the faster operation and better high-ISO performance of the Panasonic and we seem to be reversing the direction of that draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaainage...

Seriously, there's no real IQ advantage to APS-C over 4/3 anymore. The wider fov for adapting old glass IS a big deal, though, and if I were looking for a mirrorless system for adapting old glass, I certainly would prefer APS-C.

For the record, your basic premise that the Sigma DP2 has better IQ than the GH1 because it has an APS-C sized sensor is flawed; here are the sizes:

GH1 (4/3) sensor: 18.00 x 13.50 mm, 2.43 cm
Sigma DP2 sensor: 20.7 x 13.8 mm, 2.85 cm
APS-C sensor: 23.6 x 15.8 mm, 3.72 cm

The DP2 sensor is actually closer in size to 4/3 than APS-C.
09-16-2009, 01:15 PM   #49
Pentaxian
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Staten Island, NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,672
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
No sign the Panny glass is much better.
Are you sure?

The 14-45 is about as good as it gets, optically, for a kit lens.

The 45-200 is kind of weak at the longer end of its focal length but surprisingly good at the short end.

The 14-140 I admit to not having read much about.

The 7-14 is impressing pretty much everyone who's used it so far.

Preliminary samples and impressions of the 20mm are promising (far moreso than the 17mm Oly, whose flaws were apparent pretty early), and the new 45mm macro... well, Leica saw fit to put their name on it, so I expect it to be pretty much as good as it can be.

The Oly m4/3 14-42 is pretty decent, too, considering that it's a kit lens.

09-16-2009, 01:19 PM   #50
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Colorado USA
Posts: 1,337
GH1 images:

GH1 images:

I've seen on the web the better glass one mounts on GH1 the better the results.

Heres some links:

Panasonic G1 - Canon FD/Leica/Nikon - FM Forums

Panasonic 7-14 f4 arrived - FM Forums

G1 with 7-14mm - show yours !!!!! - The GetDPI Workshop Forums

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgh1/page31.asp
09-16-2009, 02:00 PM   #51
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
I own the Olympus 14-42mm, the Panny 45-200mm, and a Voigtander 40mm 1.4 all for my E-P1, and aside from build quality of the two m4/3's lenses (gotta love plastic) I've had no issues at all with them.

This was taken using the Panny 45-150mm set at 103mm's:
Flickr Photo Download: On the Brink

That's hand held at ISO800 and I could easily blow up a 20x30 print from it.

People can pixel peep at 100% all day long, but the bottom line is if I can get that kind of quality from a $250 90-400mm eqv lens then I'm a happy camper. I mean damn, that lens + E-P1 is cheaper than a Nikon 80-400mm is by itself, and produces great results. That speaks volumes for the potential m4/3's has. I can now carry a smallish, unobtrusive camera with two lenses covering a range for 28-400mm's with great ISO800 performance (and very good ISO1600 as well) all for under $1100. I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that kind of performance is more than good enough for 95% of most wanna be shutter bugs. Pentax would be crazy not to get a piece of that market. As much as I would like a Pentax full frame camera they should certainly be focusing on mirrorless cameras first...of course like others, I said that last summer also and a year later they are just now thinking about it

Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 09-16-2009 at 02:07 PM.
09-16-2009, 02:17 PM   #52
Senior Member
Angevinn's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chicago, Ill.
Posts: 205
APS-C & Micro 4/3

QuoteOriginally posted by er1kksen Quote
For the record, your basic premise that the Sigma DP2 has better IQ than the GH1 because it has an APS-C sized sensor is flawed; here are the sizes:

GH1 (4/3) sensor: 18.00 x 13.50 mm, 2.43 cm
Sigma DP2 sensor: 20.7 x 13.8 mm, 2.85 cm
APS-C sensor: 23.6 x 15.8 mm, 3.72 cm

The DP2 sensor is actually closer in size to 4/3 than APS-C.
I stated that the Sigma clobbered the Panasonic on two fronts; not just on sensor size but also on lens performance.

The review is straightforward and clearly shows the Sigma outperforming the Panasonic with the Zuiko lens. I don't believe the results were that close.

Another issue regarding Micro 4/3 and the 4/3 format is the image aspect ratio. The 4/3 system revolves around an aspect ratio of 4:3. DSLRs (APS-C and FF) use roughly a 3:2 aspect ratio. The 3:2 aspect ratio is closer to what human beings perceive visually. Movies are shown in a rectangle format (16:9). Newer televisions are also rectangle in format. I find the more square format of the 4/3 systems unappealing compared to the more rectangle 3:2 format of DSLRs.

I shot medium format in the past with my Hasselblad; the square format has its uses. Medium format also has its place in the market. For my style of shooting I prefer a more rectangle aspect ratio and larger sensor than Micro 4/3 delivers.
09-16-2009, 03:24 PM   #53
Veteran Member
nostatic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: socal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,576
QuoteOriginally posted by Angevinn Quote

Another issue regarding Micro 4/3 and the 4/3 format is the image aspect ratio. The 4/3 system revolves around an aspect ratio of 4:3. DSLRs (APS-C and FF) use roughly a 3:2 aspect ratio. The 3:2 aspect ratio is closer to what human beings perceive visually. Movies are shown in a rectangle format (16:9). Newer televisions are also rectangle in format. I find the more square format of the 4/3 systems unappealing compared to the more rectangle 3:2 format of DSLRs.
Well, the u4/3 will shoot 3:2 and 16:9 as well as 4:3 so pretty much a moot point. While 4:3 is the native size, there isn't that much lost in going the other aspect ratios.

As for the glass, the Oly 14-42 is ridiculously sharp for the price. The 17/2.8 performed worse than the 14-42 in my hands, but was OK. The 20/1.7 will be interesting, and I have no doubt that the 45/2.8 macro will kick serious arse.

And wrt lens performance and the DP-2, you're comparing apples (fixed lens) to oranges (interchangable on D-P1/G1/GH1/GF1). If you want something other than 40mm and own a DP-2...well, you can't have it. And while the Foveon sensor gives some great results, I don't know anyone who uses the DP-1/2 that raves about the performance or build quality. The usual line is that you work around the bad functionality because you get some stunning images. Just depends on what you're willing to put up with...

09-16-2009, 03:39 PM   #54
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,801
QuoteOriginally posted by nostatic Quote
Very few people care about legacy Pentax glass. Most customers want to know about what they can buy with that "new car smell."

If Pentax makes and EVIL camera in K mount, they have plenty of current glass. Problem solved. And they have market differentiation as they can trot out "APS-C is better than 4/3 sensor" and they'll have interchangeable lenses unlike the X1.

But that is only if they can get it to market soon. Dollars to donuts Nikon will have an EVIL APS-C camera by the end of 2010 if not sooner.
There's little money in bodies, lots of money in glass. To justify a new FF body, they'd need to lock buyers into new glass to make the venture profitable. Legacy glass = cannibalizing your own revenue stream.

The K-M without a mirror and a LIon battery would be darn close in size to a GH1. Pentax is there already, and have proven with the K-7 they can get the size down. If they can get it down to an EP-1 size, they've got a winner that can specialize in WR kit lens glass, or pancakes.

M4/3 shoots "good enough" IQ with a tied-in technology structure that accommodates 90% of the market for performance, form factor, and adaptability. M4/3 is a market changer because it has core competencies that drive revenues, ironically the biggest being camera size. If APS-C can compete, great (and it probably can to a large degree). But it truly relegates FF to the fringes of mass market consumer purchases. Very few people print nowadays, especially younger generations, so what the screen shows is far more important than high-fidelity paper.

The Panny 14-140 lens is another game-changer. This is the glass APS-C makers need to come up with for video. The Pentax advantage here is they seem to have the CMOS jello controlled better (back to CCD?) and have in-camera stabilisation.

And as for what aspect ratio we are more natural with? 16:9 actually. We are programmed to see side-to-side for predator awareness more than up and down.

And Sigma? Puhleeeze..........
09-16-2009, 06:20 PM   #55
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Prince George, BC Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 644
QuoteOriginally posted by Pl Jensen Quote
That is debatable. They are 25 000 000 Pentax FF lenses in existence plus many more third party lenses. The Pentax K-mount is an FF protocol. Pentax will make an FF camera when they find it profitable (why not?).
Pentax doesn't have the lenses for an EVIL camera either. Or for that matter, the coming 645D as most 645 lenses are discontinued....
I doubt you could make a FF camera a success by expecting owners of legacy lenses to buy FF in sufficient numbers to make this viable. You would have to offer current lenses along with the body to have the credibility and market acceptance. That means SDM etc., and even if Pentax could adapt their former FA line up to current standards, do they have the manufacturing capacity to produce those lenses? I do not think so!

On the other hand an EVIL camera would not require the line up of lenses expected with a FF because the market is different. An EVIL with perhaps three lenses could become viable, but I do not see that with FF where that market segment would expect a profuse line up of pro grade glass to use with their FF bodies.

ps: ...and with an adapter such as offerd for m4/3 system, all the existing DA series lenses, including the limited series, would work on an APS-C EVIL camera.

Last edited by MikePerham; 09-16-2009 at 07:30 PM.
09-16-2009, 08:52 PM   #56
Veteran Member
lurchlarson's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Oregon, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 683
As long as any future cameras have a micro-whatever mount adapter so that I can use my current lenses I'll be happy. The only reason I would buy a camera like that is if I HAD to upgrade my body and there was no other equally compelling choice.

I'm just afraid that all of the wonderful Pentax glass is going to be obsolete. I could see pentax throwing a lot of weigh and resources behind a mirror-less system.
09-16-2009, 10:10 PM   #57
Pentaxian
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Staten Island, NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,672
QuoteOriginally posted by nostatic Quote
Well, the u4/3 will shoot 3:2 and 16:9 as well as 4:3 so pretty much a moot point. While 4:3 is the native size, there isn't that much lost in going the other aspect ratios.
I agree that its not really an issue, but it's worth pointing out that when shooting in a different aspect ratio with the GH1, you don't lose anything: The GH1 has an oversized sensor that lets it shoot in 4:3, 3:2, or 16:9 with no reduction of resolution. So if someone wants to be really picky about aspect ratio, the GH1 is the way to go... it kind of reverses the argument.

If we do want to still be argumentative, 4/3 is closer to the gold-standard "professional" 5:4 aspect ratio than 3:2, and as such is closer to most standard print sizes. It irks me to no end to have to deal with cropping an image composed perfectly for 3:2 to fit into a 5x7 or 8x10.
09-18-2009, 01:00 AM   #58
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,214
QuoteOriginally posted by er1kksen Quote
I agree that its not really an issue, but it's worth pointing out that when shooting in a different aspect ratio with the GH1, you don't lose anything: The GH1 has an oversized sensor that lets it shoot in 4:3, 3:2, or 16:9 with no reduction of resolution. So if someone wants to be really picky about aspect ratio, the GH1 is the way to go... it kind of reverses the argument.

If we do want to still be argumentative, 4/3 is closer to the gold-standard "professional" 5:4 aspect ratio than 3:2, and as such is closer to most standard print sizes. It irks me to no end to have to deal with cropping an image composed perfectly for 3:2 to fit into a 5x7 or 8x10.
We could also state (devils advocate) that, compared to the total available sensor surface, you always lose data whatever the aspect ratio you chose.
09-18-2009, 08:23 AM   #59
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Prince George, BC Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 644
QuoteOriginally posted by er1kksen Quote
If we do want to still be argumentative, 4/3 is closer to the gold-standard "professional" 5:4 aspect ratio than 3:2, and as such is closer to most standard print sizes. It irks me to no end to have to deal with cropping an image composed perfectly for 3:2 to fit into a 5x7 or 8x10.
I know we are talking about EVIL cameras, but this is an interesting point regardless of camera type. Since getting my K-7 I am finding the 100% viewfinder allows me to compose very precisely and I am not making the little crops I did after importing into Lightroom as I did with the K10D. So if Pentax do produce an EVIL with an APS-C sensor, the same would apply as LCDs tend to offer a 100% view. Now I just print to the native aspect ratio in most cases, unless the subject dictates otherwise.
09-18-2009, 12:15 PM   #60
Pentaxian
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Staten Island, NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,672
Ah, see, that's where frame prices are a bugger. I'm cheap, and frames, sadly, are not... especially when all you really want is an 8x12 frame and all they have are 8x10s...

You are correct that you'd be technically losing data in any of the crops, then, but only relative to the sensor's total area, not relative to the intended resolution of the camera. It would be interesting if you could find a way to take a picture using the total sensor area, but I suspect that the area in the corners that's never activated in any of the aspect ratios may not be designed for imaging (either non-functional or used to evaluate things like color and white balance), so you might end up with three-step corners which would look a little funny.

An interesting possibility with EVF cameras is the ease of overlaying aspect-ratio guidlines... you still get 100% view, but you can see what the crop lines would be for the aspect ratio you plan to print with, and compose accordingly.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, photography, reviews
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax mirrorless/Evil system rumors!? Adam B. Pentax News and Rumors 323 10-27-2010 08:42 AM
[RUMOR] Canon's First Mirrorless Camera! jct us101 Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 12 09-14-2010 08:08 PM
Pentax's Reply to my inquiry about a Mirrorless Camera SMPhoto Pentax News and Rumors 91 08-15-2010 01:58 PM
Pentax mirrorless camera in LX like design body ogl Pentax News and Rumors 94 03-23-2010 04:21 AM
Samsung GX fullframe mirrorless camera system? amonsul Pentax News and Rumors 46 11-12-2009 05:37 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:21 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top