Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
thanks anthony. you wrote what i was going to. the ZD 35 Macro and ZD 25 focus quickly but with nowhere near the speed and silence of the Olympus pro-class lenses I have (ZD 11-22/2.8-3.5, ZD 50-200/2.8-3.5) or Panasonic/Leica lenses (Vario- Elmarit-D 14-50/2.8-3.5, Summilux-D 25/1.4). Obviously better quality focusing motors in those four. The newer generation pro lenses with SWD focus drives are much faster and quieter still. of course I haven't seen a Panny G1 body yet (and the optional adapter) to test the two 25s on it. i expect they'll work pretty well however. G On Sep 14, 2008, at 3:13 AM, Anthony Farr wrote: > Screwdriver AF doesn't require a lens to be compatible with any > particular > mode of AF control. Hell, it doesn't even need any embedded > electronics > associated with focusing, save for distance reporting not critical > to focus > operation. These lenses can just be dumb mechanisms following the > camera > body's instructions. Compatibility is no issue at all. > > Focus by wire is entirely a different kettle of fish. The lens is an > integral part of the 'brain' of the system, and who other than the > designers > knows what requirements need to be fulfilled. But I can offer this > observation. My old EVF style camera has CDAF focusing. When it > focuses, > the gross movements happen at a fast motor speed, but when it > approaches > correct focus the motor slows considerably for the last fine focusing. > Clearly, this focusing motor has variable speeds. My DSLR is the > "bottom > feeder" model from Olympus, the E-410 which has only PDAF (CDAF not > being > added until the 420 mode, AF during live view is achieved by a > quick mirror > flip into reflex view, and back into live view all in about a > second). Even > considering the humble status of this camera, the AF flies like shit > off a > shovel. It will snap into focus in a trice with no hunting. But my > observation is that the motors in the two consumer zooms I have run > only at > a single high speed. I'm guessing that CDAF needs AF motors that > slow down > as they approach correct focus, and that the cheaper lenses weren't > enabled > for this mode in their original firmware versions. Someone with the > better > 4/3 lenses might comment on their operation. > > IMO this thread is a storm in a teacup, because Olympus has issued > firmware > updates to enable CDAF in live view with the "incompatible" lenses. > > Problem solved. > > Regards, Anthony Farr -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
Screwdriver AF doesn't require a lens to be compatible with any particular mode of AF control. Hell, it doesn't even need any embedded electronics associated with focusing, save for distance reporting not critical to focus operation. These lenses can just be dumb mechanisms following the camera body's instructions. Compatibility is no issue at all. Focus by wire is entirely a different kettle of fish. The lens is an integral part of the 'brain' of the system, and who other than the designers knows what requirements need to be fulfilled. But I can offer this observation. My old EVF style camera has CDAF focusing. When it focuses, the gross movements happen at a fast motor speed, but when it approaches correct focus the motor slows considerably for the last fine focusing. Clearly, this focusing motor has variable speeds. My DSLR is the "bottom feeder" model from Olympus, the E-410 which has only PDAF (CDAF not being added until the 420 mode, AF during live view is achieved by a quick mirror flip into reflex view, and back into live view all in about a second). Even considering the humble status of this camera, the AF flies like shit off a shovel. It will snap into focus in a trice with no hunting. But my observation is that the motors in the two consumer zooms I have run only at a single high speed. I'm guessing that CDAF needs AF motors that slow down as they approach correct focus, and that the cheaper lenses weren't enabled for this mode in their original firmware versions. Someone with the better 4/3 lenses might comment on their operation. IMO this thread is a storm in a teacup, because Olympus has issued firmware updates to enable CDAF in live view with the "incompatible" lenses. Problem solved. Regards, Anthony Farr > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Adam Maas > Sent: Sunday, 14 September 2008 7:17 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1 > > When everybody elses lensed designed "years" before Live View and CDAF > work just fine? Yup. Canon and Nikon had much more significant hurdles > to get 20 year old lenses to AF with CDAF than Oly did with at most 5 > year old lenses designed for a focus-by-wire application like CDAF. > Nikon, with it's obsolete screwdriver-drive AF pulled it off, and both > Nikon and Canon have achieved it on lens-motor based lenses, despite > their specs dating back to ancient times (the Nikon lens-motor control > spec dates to 1983, the Canon to 1987). Wasn't 4/3rds supposed to be > the 'modern, future-proof' mount? > > I don't expect the same level of AF speed from the older lenses as the > new ones designed for the application, but the bloody things should be > able to AF in the first place. Especially since Olympus designed them > to be firmware-upgradable. Frankly I doubt this is even an engineering > issue per se. More likely it's just a budgeting issue and they didn't > spend the money to implement the necessary support either in the > bodies or via firmware upgrades. > > Heck, despite all that I'm still enthused for the G1 and am seriously > considering buying one once the 20/1.7 becomes available. > > -Adam > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
First, magazines hammered Pentax because they were slow going to a bayonet mount - IIRC, every review of pre-bayonet lenses in the years after "everybody else" had gone bayonet mentioned the "slow lens change problem". Then when the bayonet mount came out, the criticisms went to "you've obsoleted all our lenses"! A no-win situation for Pentax, even though they had provided a way to use the screw-mounts with the K-adaptor John Coyle Brisbane, Australia -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 12 September 2008 11:28 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1 > On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:24 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> It seems to me however, that it is a nice attempt and that in a couple >>> months this micro4/3 may indeed be a very interesting market segment. >> >> The whole M4/3 system is still walks in baby-shoes. In 1975 when Pentax >> created the Pentax K bayonett all of the older Pentax lenses (M42 Taks) >> was useable with limitations... Did anyone complain? :) > > Pentax Forum. > > Dave I mean back in 1975... :D Pentax Forum will always complain about something :D That's why we use Pentax... we want to get to perfection as close as possible :D But since we can't get to the total perfection we complain! No camera is perfect, but Pentax is pretty close :D :D :D .t -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
Contrast-Detect Auto-Focus, the method used on many P&S digital cameras and in Live View on some DSLR's to AF. It's very accurate but generally slower than the traditional AF units on DSLR's which can't be used when the mirror is up. It works by measuring contrast off the sensor. -Adam On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 6:21 PM, David J Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > CDAF.?? > > Dace > > On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> When everybody elses lensed designed "years" before Live View and CDAF >> work just fine? Yup. Canon and Nikon had much more significant hurdles >> to get 20 year old lenses to AF with CDAF than Oly did with at most 5 >> year old lenses designed for a focus-by-wire application like CDAF. >> Nikon, with it's obsolete screwdriver-drive AF pulled it off, and both >> Nikon and Canon have achieved it on lens-motor based lenses, despite >> their specs dating back to ancient times (the Nikon lens-motor control >> spec dates to 1983, the Canon to 1987). Wasn't 4/3rds supposed to be >> the 'modern, future-proof' mount? >> >> I don't expect the same level of AF speed from the older lenses as the >> new ones designed for the application, but the bloody things should be >> able to AF in the first place. Especially since Olympus designed them >> to be firmware-upgradable. Frankly I doubt this is even an engineering >> issue per se. More likely it's just a budgeting issue and they didn't >> spend the money to implement the necessary support either in the >> bodies or via firmware upgrades. >> >> Heck, despite all that I'm still enthused for the G1 and am seriously >> considering buying one once the 20/1.7 becomes available. >> >> -Adam >> >> On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Oh give it up. You want to say someone bungled something in lenses >>> designed *years* before the Live View and CDAF existed because it >>> makes you feel like you know something that their engineering people >>> dont and want to complain about it? fine, go ahead. >>> >>> Knowing how much hard work had to go into this design to make it do >>> what it does, I find it perfectly reasonable even with the feature >>> limitations. I'd rather have a lens that focuses manually very >>> accurately and conveniently than a lens that almost works well with an >>> auto focus system that it wasn't designed for. >>> >>> G >>> >>> >>> On Sep 13, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Adam Maas wrote: >>> Sony doesn't even offer CDAF on their SLR's, they use second-sensor LV and leave the mirror down to do phase-detection AF. Works very well, especially since they offer the fastest AF in-class already on the A300. If it's Panny pushing CDAF on 4/3rds and they didn't implement it in a way that would work with legacy lenses, it's their bungling, not Oly's. But it's still a bungle for 4/3rds. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the directions. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> M. Adam Maas >> http://www.mawz.ca >> Explorations of the City Around Us. >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> > > > > -- > Equine Photography > www.caughtinmotion.com > http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ > Ontario Canada > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
CDAF.?? Dace On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When everybody elses lensed designed "years" before Live View and CDAF > work just fine? Yup. Canon and Nikon had much more significant hurdles > to get 20 year old lenses to AF with CDAF than Oly did with at most 5 > year old lenses designed for a focus-by-wire application like CDAF. > Nikon, with it's obsolete screwdriver-drive AF pulled it off, and both > Nikon and Canon have achieved it on lens-motor based lenses, despite > their specs dating back to ancient times (the Nikon lens-motor control > spec dates to 1983, the Canon to 1987). Wasn't 4/3rds supposed to be > the 'modern, future-proof' mount? > > I don't expect the same level of AF speed from the older lenses as the > new ones designed for the application, but the bloody things should be > able to AF in the first place. Especially since Olympus designed them > to be firmware-upgradable. Frankly I doubt this is even an engineering > issue per se. More likely it's just a budgeting issue and they didn't > spend the money to implement the necessary support either in the > bodies or via firmware upgrades. > > Heck, despite all that I'm still enthused for the G1 and am seriously > considering buying one once the 20/1.7 becomes available. > > -Adam > > On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Oh give it up. You want to say someone bungled something in lenses >> designed *years* before the Live View and CDAF existed because it >> makes you feel like you know something that their engineering people >> dont and want to complain about it? fine, go ahead. >> >> Knowing how much hard work had to go into this design to make it do >> what it does, I find it perfectly reasonable even with the feature >> limitations. I'd rather have a lens that focuses manually very >> accurately and conveniently than a lens that almost works well with an >> auto focus system that it wasn't designed for. >> >> G >> >> >> On Sep 13, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Adam Maas wrote: >> >>> Sony doesn't even offer CDAF on their SLR's, they use second-sensor LV >>> and leave the mirror down to do phase-detection AF. Works very well, >>> especially since they offer the fastest AF in-class already on the >>> A300. >>> >>> If it's Panny pushing CDAF on 4/3rds and they didn't implement it in a >>> way that would work with legacy lenses, it's their bungling, not >>> Oly's. But it's still a bungle for 4/3rds. >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> > > > > -- > M. Adam Maas > http://www.mawz.ca > Explorations of the City Around Us. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
Sadly, my D300's got faster CDAF than the last couple of Nikon P&S's I've tried. Nikon just doesn't do the P&S thing well anymore and it shows in the CDAF performance. CDAF on the D300 is usable without a tripod though, just don't expect to follow anything moving. Doesn't change the fact that 4/3rds should not have required any changes to the lens to enable CDAF, even if it did require said changes to get fast performance from CDAF. -Adam On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I played with a couple of them on that body. > Nikon calls it "tripod mode" for a reason. :-) > > G > > On Sep 13, 2008, at 3:43 AM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> That's simply not the case. My D300 does CDAF just fine with >> screwdriver-drive AF lenses from the late 80's as well as lens-motor >> AF-S lenses from both before and after Nikon introduced CDAF with Live >> View on its DSLR's. Oly bungled the spec. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
I played with a couple of them on that body. Nikon calls it "tripod mode" for a reason. :-) G On Sep 13, 2008, at 3:43 AM, Adam Maas wrote: > That's simply not the case. My D300 does CDAF just fine with > screwdriver-drive AF lenses from the late 80's as well as lens-motor > AF-S lenses from both before and after Nikon introduced CDAF with Live > View on its DSLR's. Oly bungled the spec. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
That's simply not the case. My D300 does CDAF just fine with screwdriver-drive AF lenses from the late 80's as well as lens-motor AF-S lenses from both before and after Nikon introduced CDAF with Live View on its DSLR's. Oly bungled the spec. -Adam On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 3:53 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > CDAF requires much more out of a lens focus servo than phase detect AF > for responsive operation. CDAF could not have been foreseen as a part > of the original 4/3 System specification. > > A 20mm f/1.7 is on the lens roadmap. It's unknown as to how much Leica > is going to be involved ... I hope they do, but I know from good > sources that they haven't been particularly happy with the Panasonic > collaboration on this for a bit. But I'm sure Panasonic understand the > strength of good lenses and will do the right thing ... ! > > Imaging-resource.com has another good article on the camera. > > Godfrey > > On Sep 12, 2008, at 5:57 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> The AF thing is a problem with the original 4/3rds spec, when they >> introduced Contrast-detect AF they didn't do it in a fashion that's >> compatible with most 4/3rds lenses. The limitation also applies to the >> E-520 and E-420 when using contrast-detect AF as well. >> >> I'm interested in this thing but I would have preferred a more >> RF-style body on a camera this small. >> >> Interesting to also note that the new Panny lenses are NOT Leica's, >> all of their previous 4/3rds lenses were Leica. Damn, and I was hoping >> for a 17-20mm f2 Summicron and 35-40mm f2 Summicron. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
> On 13/9/08, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >Godfrey, I don't give a toss (I couldn't possibly know how > to actually > >give one) > > No worries, plenty of folk here could teach you :) > ;o) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
On 13/9/08, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed: >Godfrey, I don't give a toss (I couldn't possibly know how to actually >give one) No worries, plenty of folk here could teach you :) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
CDAF requires much more out of a lens focus servo than phase detect AF for responsive operation. CDAF could not have been foreseen as a part of the original 4/3 System specification. A 20mm f/1.7 is on the lens roadmap. It's unknown as to how much Leica is going to be involved ... I hope they do, but I know from good sources that they haven't been particularly happy with the Panasonic collaboration on this for a bit. But I'm sure Panasonic understand the strength of good lenses and will do the right thing ... ! Imaging-resource.com has another good article on the camera. Godfrey On Sep 12, 2008, at 5:57 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > The AF thing is a problem with the original 4/3rds spec, when they > introduced Contrast-detect AF they didn't do it in a fashion that's > compatible with most 4/3rds lenses. The limitation also applies to the > E-520 and E-420 when using contrast-detect AF as well. > > I'm interested in this thing but I would have preferred a more > RF-style body on a camera this small. > > Interesting to also note that the new Panny lenses are NOT Leica's, > all of their previous 4/3rds lenses were Leica. Damn, and I was hoping > for a 17-20mm f2 Summicron and 35-40mm f2 Summicron. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
There's no such thing as "full expression of ... blah blah blah". Those are only expectations and desires. If you want the FoV-DoF coverage of a 35mm film camera, well, that's the sensor format you need. The lens doesn't care. ;-) Godfrey On Sep 12, 2008, at 8:56 PM, Boris Liberman wrote: > Yep. > > Good work, Panasonic. It very well may be the next camera we will be > buy > either for me or for Galia. I think that with 25/2.8 pancake or if > it is > small with 20/1.7 lens, it will be great piece of kit. > > Godfrey, I don't give a toss (I couldn't possibly know how to actually > give one) about full frame, although certain things, such as full > expression of DOF of fast (below f/2.0) lenses is better represented > on > the image sensor of size equal to that of the original lens design. > > Subash wrote: >> since no one seems to have posted the link here... :-) >> http://www.dpreview.com/Previews/PanasonicG1/ >> -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
Yep. Good work, Panasonic. It very well may be the next camera we will be buy either for me or for Galia. I think that with 25/2.8 pancake or if it is small with 20/1.7 lens, it will be great piece of kit. Godfrey, I don't give a toss (I couldn't possibly know how to actually give one) about full frame, although certain things, such as full expression of DOF of fast (below f/2.0) lenses is better represented on the image sensor of size equal to that of the original lens design. Cheers! Boris Subash wrote: > since no one seems to have posted the link here... :-) > > http://www.dpreview.com/Previews/PanasonicG1/ > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
The AF thing is a problem with the original 4/3rds spec, when they introduced Contrast-detect AF they didn't do it in a fashion that's compatible with most 4/3rds lenses. The limitation also applies to the E-520 and E-420 when using contrast-detect AF as well. I'm interested in this thing but I would have preferred a more RF-style body on a camera this small. Interesting to also note that the new Panny lenses are NOT Leica's, all of their previous 4/3rds lenses were Leica. Damn, and I was hoping for a 17-20mm f2 Summicron and 35-40mm f2 Summicron. -Adam On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:03 AM, Thibouille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First things I note (those are preliminary notes, I think it should be > compared before defenitive decision, speaking for me of course): > > * it doesn't seem *that* small but it is very difficult to judge not > having a e.g. E420 next to it. > > the quote at the end may stink IMO: > >>Lenses that are not compatible with the contrast AF function can be used with >>manual >>focusing. There are some limitations to other functions when the lenses other >>than LUMIX G >>VARIO 14-45mm/F3.5-F5.6 ASPH./MEGA O.I.S. and LUMIX G VARIO >>45-200mm/F4.0-F5.6/MEGA O.I.S. > > What would be the purpose of using 4/3 lens on a 4/3 camera if AF > doesn't work (as for the intended market of the camera, I agree it > heavily depends on the use of it). > > It seems to me however, that it is a nice attempt and that in a couple > months this micro4/3 may indeed be a very interesting market segment. > > -- > Thibault Massart aka Thibouille > -- > Photo: K10D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... > Thinkpad: X23+UB,X60+UB > Programing: D7 user (trying out D2007) > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
OK, Peter, it seems the general consensus is that, as you say, DoF is affected only by focal length. (manufacturing variations notwithstanding). Found a Google discussion on the lens to film distance effect on DoF. Jack --- On Fri, 9/12/08, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1 > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Date: Friday, September 12, 2008, 12:51 PM > Jack Davis wrote: > > A closer proximity of lens and "film" would > produce a sharper image..however imperceptible, but your > answer is what I would guess in the case with pixels. > > I would think, however, that the same DOF might be > possible with a somewhat larger aperture and diffraction > reduced accordingly.(?) > > > I don't see why the second point would be true, the > focal length would > be the same so the actual aperture would be the same size. > You might be > right about the sharpness, but I would think lens > characteristics would > be more important than the airspace between the objective > and the > "sensor". One of the sharpest lenses I own is > the 4 inch, (100mm), 5 > element 4 group f3.5 Kodak Ektar on my Medalist II,, (6x9 > on 120 film), > it's relatively simple geometry means that theres a lot > of airspace > between it and the film, at least 6 times the distance as > the equivelent > 35mm lens, (Pentax 43mm limited), yet it's performance > is similar, in > fact it's actually quite a bit better wide open. > (I'd post a sample but > I don't have a medium format capable scanner set up > right now). > > Thanks, Peter! > > > > Final thoughts on the issue, > > > > Jack > > > > > > --- On Fri, 9/12/08, P. J. Alling > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> From: P. J. Alling > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Subject: Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds > camera: G1 > >> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > > >> Date: Friday, September 12, 2008, 10:17 AM > >> Jack Davis wrote: > >> > >>> Will the fact that the sensor is closer to the > lens > >>> > >> produce a "sharper" image? > >> > >>> > >>> > >> Probably not. > >> > >>> Will the image circle of existing 4:3 lenses > not > >>> > >> completely cover the sensor, therefore, producing > >> vignetting, but increasing the telescopic effect? > >> > >>> Do to a gain in DOF, will small aperture > diffraction > >>> > >> be reduced? > >> > >>> > >>> > >> No more than on current 4:3 cameras. > >> > >>> Please be gentle. ;) > >>> > >>> > >> Suffer. > >> > >>> Jack > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> --- On Fri, 9/12/08, P. J. Alling > >>> > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>>> From: P. J. Alling > >>>> > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >>>> Subject: Re: panasonic's new micro > four/thirds > >>>> > >> camera: G1 > >> > >>>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > >>>> > >> > >> > >>>> Date: Friday, September 12, 2008, 9:45 AM > >>>> They're still hobbled by the small > sensor > >>>> > >> size. As > >> > >>>> technology improves > >>>> and 24x36mm sensors become more prevalent, > (and > >>>> > >> there's > >> > >>>> no upgrade path > >>>> even possible), I think this will be > relegated to > >>>> > >> a second > >> > >>>> class system, > >>>> sort of where 4:3 is headed today. The > same issue > >>>> > >> that > >> > >>>> always comes up > >>>> when comparing formats, bigger is better, > (higher > >>>> > >> image > >> > >>>> quality), if you > >>>> can afford it. > >>>> > >
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
On Sep 12, 2008, at 6:03 AM, Mike Hamilton wrote: > - Olympus Zuiko 25 F2.8 'Pancake' > - Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 > - Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6 > - Panasonic Leica D Summilux 25mm F1.4 ASPH > - Panasonic Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-50mm F3.8-5.6 ASPH. Mega OIS > - Panasonic Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-150mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH. Mega OIS Ah, I misspoke. I have two of them ... the two 25mm lenses. No problem really, they're what I use 90% of the time anyway. ;-) G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
>> Will the fact that the sensor is closer to the lens produce a >> "sharper" image? >> > Probably not. >> Will the image circle of existing 4:3 lenses not completely cover >> the sensor, therefore, producing vignetting, but increasing the >> telescopic effect? >> Do to a gain in DOF, will small aperture diffraction be reduced? >> > No more than on current 4:3 cameras. The format is the same as 4/3 so all 4/3 lenses will cover the format perfectly, using the 4/3->m4/3 adapter, and there will be no difference in imaging quality with them. There just won't be a flippy mirror in the way so the body will be quiet and vibrationless. The FoV- DoF of 4/3 will remain the same with m4/3 ... in other words, a 25mm lens on either will show exactly the same image characteristics at the same aperture and focus distance ... modulo the difference in lens design of course. The shorter register means that simpler, less expensive, smaller and lighter lens designs can be made with equal quality to what is made now for the SLR bodies ... a 20mm f/1.7 (on the roadmap) for m4/3 will be 30-50% smaller than the size of the same lens designed for the DSLR bodies since you could do it with a non-retrofocus design. EG: the Leica Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH for the SLR bodies, redesigned for m4/3, could be as small as a 35mm film rangefinder camera's 25mm f/1.4 and one third the weight of the current lens, which requires a very complex retrofocus lens design to achieve its quality and speed. Older 4/3 SLR lenses were not designed for contrast-detect AF focusing algorithms. Lenses produced since Olympus/Panasonic/Leica pioneered Live View in DSLRs, and then pioneered CDAF. All lenses produced since CDAF in SLRs was invented, and those that have been given focusing algorithm firmware updates, are what works with the m4/3 focusing system. Others are manually focused and some of the fancy face detect and follow focus features are not available, that's all. Of the list of compatible 4/3 lenses, I've got all the ones that matter already (Leica 14-50/2.8-3.5, Leica 25/1.4, Olympus 25/2.8 ...). Yes, size matters. I want my cameras to be smaller, lighter, easier to carry and returning the same quality as what I have now. ];-) For the way I use a viewfinder, if Panasonic has done what I think they have, this will be a fantastic addition to my kit. I wouldn't pass judgement until I see one ... can't wait to see one. And they've got the lens I MOST want on the roadmap for next year ... a 20mm f/1.7 prime. Now that makes me happy. G (as you might imagine, I could give a toss about so-called "full frame"...) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
Jack Davis wrote: > A closer proximity of lens and "film" would produce a sharper image..however > imperceptible, but your answer is what I would guess in the case with pixels. > I would think, however, that the same DOF might be possible with a somewhat > larger aperture and diffraction reduced accordingly.(?) > I don't see why the second point would be true, the focal length would be the same so the actual aperture would be the same size. You might be right about the sharpness, but I would think lens characteristics would be more important than the airspace between the objective and the "sensor". One of the sharpest lenses I own is the 4 inch, (100mm), 5 element 4 group f3.5 Kodak Ektar on my Medalist II,, (6x9 on 120 film), it's relatively simple geometry means that theres a lot of airspace between it and the film, at least 6 times the distance as the equivelent 35mm lens, (Pentax 43mm limited), yet it's performance is similar, in fact it's actually quite a bit better wide open. (I'd post a sample but I don't have a medium format capable scanner set up right now). > Thanks, Peter! > > Final thoughts on the issue, > > Jack > > > --- On Fri, 9/12/08, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> From: P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1 >> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" >> Date: Friday, September 12, 2008, 10:17 AM >> Jack Davis wrote: >> >>> Will the fact that the sensor is closer to the lens >>> >> produce a "sharper" image? >> >>> >>> >> Probably not. >> >>> Will the image circle of existing 4:3 lenses not >>> >> completely cover the sensor, therefore, producing >> vignetting, but increasing the telescopic effect? >> >>> Do to a gain in DOF, will small aperture diffraction >>> >> be reduced? >> >>> >>> >> No more than on current 4:3 cameras. >> >>> Please be gentle. ;) >>> >>> >> Suffer. >> >>> Jack >>> >>> >>> >>> --- On Fri, 9/12/08, P. J. Alling >>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>> From: P. J. Alling >>>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>>> Subject: Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds >>>> >> camera: G1 >> >>>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" >>>> >> >> >>>> Date: Friday, September 12, 2008, 9:45 AM >>>> They're still hobbled by the small sensor >>>> >> size. As >> >>>> technology improves >>>> and 24x36mm sensors become more prevalent, (and >>>> >> there's >> >>>> no upgrade path >>>> even possible), I think this will be relegated to >>>> >> a second >> >>>> class system, >>>> sort of where 4:3 is headed today. The same issue >>>> >> that >> >>>> always comes up >>>> when comparing formats, bigger is better, (higher >>>> >> image >> >>>> quality), if you >>>> can afford it. >>>> >>>> Mike Johnson had an interesting take on lens >>>> >> compactness. >> >>>> He always >>>> thought that amateurs liked telephotos for their >>>> >> extra >> >>>> reach, smaller >>>> formats make for smaller long lenses with the same >>>> >> reach, >> >>>> so that would >>>> be good. But it's not the effective focal >>>> >> length >> >>>> it's the physical >>>> size that matters. Most amateurs want big lenses >>>> >> because >> >>>> they look more >>>> impressive. My 400 captures the same image, (on >>>> >> my >> >>>> sensor), as your 800 >>>> on your's, but the 800 trumps. >>>> >>>> In other words size /still/ matters. >>>> >>>> Subash wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> since no one seems to have posted the link >>>>> >> here... :-) >> >>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/Previews/PanasonicG1/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> You get further with a kind word and a gun, than >>>> >> with a >> >>>> kind word alone. >>>>--Al Capone. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the >>>> >> link >> >>>> directly above and follow the directions. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a >> kind word alone. >> --Al Capone. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link >> directly above and follow the directions. >> > > > > > -- You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. --Al Capone. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
A closer proximity of lens and "film" would produce a sharper image..however imperceptible, but your answer is what I would guess in the case with pixels. I would think, however, that the same DOF might be possible with a somewhat larger aperture and diffraction reduced accordingly.(?) Thanks, Peter! Final thoughts on the issue, Jack --- On Fri, 9/12/08, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1 > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Date: Friday, September 12, 2008, 10:17 AM > Jack Davis wrote: > > Will the fact that the sensor is closer to the lens > produce a "sharper" image? > > > Probably not. > > Will the image circle of existing 4:3 lenses not > completely cover the sensor, therefore, producing > vignetting, but increasing the telescopic effect? > > Do to a gain in DOF, will small aperture diffraction > be reduced? > > > No more than on current 4:3 cameras. > > Please be gentle. ;) > > > Suffer. > > > > Jack > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 9/12/08, P. J. Alling > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> From: P. J. Alling > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Subject: Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds > camera: G1 > >> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > > >> Date: Friday, September 12, 2008, 9:45 AM > >> They're still hobbled by the small sensor > size. As > >> technology improves > >> and 24x36mm sensors become more prevalent, (and > there's > >> no upgrade path > >> even possible), I think this will be relegated to > a second > >> class system, > >> sort of where 4:3 is headed today. The same issue > that > >> always comes up > >> when comparing formats, bigger is better, (higher > image > >> quality), if you > >> can afford it. > >> > >> Mike Johnson had an interesting take on lens > compactness. > >> He always > >> thought that amateurs liked telephotos for their > extra > >> reach, smaller > >> formats make for smaller long lenses with the same > reach, > >> so that would > >> be good. But it's not the effective focal > length > >> it's the physical > >> size that matters. Most amateurs want big lenses > because > >> they look more > >> impressive. My 400 captures the same image, (on > my > >> sensor), as your 800 > >> on your's, but the 800 trumps. > >> > >> In other words size /still/ matters. > >> > >> Subash wrote: > >> > >>> since no one seems to have posted the link > here... :-) > >>> > >>> http://www.dpreview.com/Previews/PanasonicG1/ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> You get further with a kind word and a gun, than > with a > >> kind word alone. > >>--Al Capone. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the > link > >> directly above and follow the directions. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a > kind word alone. > --Al Capone. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link > directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
Jack Davis wrote: > Will the fact that the sensor is closer to the lens produce a "sharper" image? > Probably not. > Will the image circle of existing 4:3 lenses not completely cover the sensor, > therefore, producing vignetting, but increasing the telescopic effect? > Do to a gain in DOF, will small aperture diffraction be reduced? > No more than on current 4:3 cameras. > Please be gentle. ;) > Suffer. > > Jack > > > > --- On Fri, 9/12/08, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> From: P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1 >> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" >> Date: Friday, September 12, 2008, 9:45 AM >> They're still hobbled by the small sensor size. As >> technology improves >> and 24x36mm sensors become more prevalent, (and there's >> no upgrade path >> even possible), I think this will be relegated to a second >> class system, >> sort of where 4:3 is headed today. The same issue that >> always comes up >> when comparing formats, bigger is better, (higher image >> quality), if you >> can afford it. >> >> Mike Johnson had an interesting take on lens compactness. >> He always >> thought that amateurs liked telephotos for their extra >> reach, smaller >> formats make for smaller long lenses with the same reach, >> so that would >> be good. But it's not the effective focal length >> it's the physical >> size that matters. Most amateurs want big lenses because >> they look more >> impressive. My 400 captures the same image, (on my >> sensor), as your 800 >> on your's, but the 800 trumps. >> >> In other words size /still/ matters. >> >> Subash wrote: >> >>> since no one seems to have posted the link here... :-) >>> >>> http://www.dpreview.com/Previews/PanasonicG1/ >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a >> kind word alone. >> --Al Capone. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link >> directly above and follow the directions. >> > > > > > -- You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. --Al Capone. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
Will the fact that the sensor is closer to the lens produce a "sharper" image? Will the image circle of existing 4:3 lenses not completely cover the sensor, therefore, producing vignetting, but increasing the telescopic effect? Do to a gain in DOF, will small aperture diffraction be reduced? Please be gentle. ;) Jack --- On Fri, 9/12/08, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1 > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Date: Friday, September 12, 2008, 9:45 AM > They're still hobbled by the small sensor size. As > technology improves > and 24x36mm sensors become more prevalent, (and there's > no upgrade path > even possible), I think this will be relegated to a second > class system, > sort of where 4:3 is headed today. The same issue that > always comes up > when comparing formats, bigger is better, (higher image > quality), if you > can afford it. > > Mike Johnson had an interesting take on lens compactness. > He always > thought that amateurs liked telephotos for their extra > reach, smaller > formats make for smaller long lenses with the same reach, > so that would > be good. But it's not the effective focal length > it's the physical > size that matters. Most amateurs want big lenses because > they look more > impressive. My 400 captures the same image, (on my > sensor), as your 800 > on your's, but the 800 trumps. > > In other words size /still/ matters. > > Subash wrote: > > since no one seems to have posted the link here... :-) > > > > http://www.dpreview.com/Previews/PanasonicG1/ > > > > > > > -- > You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a > kind word alone. > --Al Capone. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link > directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
If I remember correctly Pentax sold the Spotmatic F SP1000 and ESII alongside the KM KX and K2 for at least a year maybe two so you still had a choice. In fact Pentax had only gone over to an Open aperture metering system a couple of years earlier so most users lost only auto diaphragm which which didn't mean much to me I was still using a Spotmatic (non F). I don't think a lot of current users of 4:3 system cameras will go over. Panasonic is banking on new users trading up from P&S or ZLR's. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> It seems to me however, that it is a nice attempt and that in a couple >> months this micro4/3 may indeed be a very interesting market segment. >> > > The whole M4/3 system is still walks in baby-shoes. In 1975 when Pentax > created the Pentax K bayonett all of the older Pentax lenses (M42 Taks) > was useable with limitations... Did anyone complain? :) > > .t > > > > -- You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. --Al Capone. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
They're still hobbled by the small sensor size. As technology improves and 24x36mm sensors become more prevalent, (and there's no upgrade path even possible), I think this will be relegated to a second class system, sort of where 4:3 is headed today. The same issue that always comes up when comparing formats, bigger is better, (higher image quality), if you can afford it. Mike Johnson had an interesting take on lens compactness. He always thought that amateurs liked telephotos for their extra reach, smaller formats make for smaller long lenses with the same reach, so that would be good. But it's not the effective focal length it's the physical size that matters. Most amateurs want big lenses because they look more impressive. My 400 captures the same image, (on my sensor), as your 800 on your's, but the 800 trumps. In other words size /still/ matters. Subash wrote: > since no one seems to have posted the link here... :-) > > http://www.dpreview.com/Previews/PanasonicG1/ > > -- You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. --Al Capone. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
On 12/9/08, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed: > I cannot focus >on the screen at the back of a camera unless I wear my reading >glasses, but I'm not prepared to wear them when I'm out and about >shooting - it is just not practical. I suspect an electronic >viewfinder would be unusable for me and for much of their target Just as a point of information, the electronic viewfinder of my video camera has an optical lens arrangement in front of if to allow focussing of the eye onto the viewfinder. The focus for this is easy to change, and I move it depending on weather I'm wearing my glasses or not. Much as I hate these electronic viewfinders, and mine is extremely high resolution (and a cathode ray tube to boot!), it is pretty easy to see and use. Probably smaller still cameras will not have as good an arrangement - and again, it all depends on the quality of the screen. Most suck. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:24 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> It seems to me however, that it is a nice attempt and that in a couple >>> months this micro4/3 may indeed be a very interesting market segment. >> >> The whole M4/3 system is still walks in baby-shoes. In 1975 when Pentax >> created the Pentax K bayonett all of the older Pentax lenses (M42 Taks) >> was useable with limitations... Did anyone complain? :) > > Pentax Forum. > > Dave I mean back in 1975... :D Pentax Forum will always complain about something :D That's why we use Pentax... we want to get to perfection as close as possible :D But since we can't get to the total perfection we complain! No camera is perfect, but Pentax is pretty close :D :D :D .t -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:24 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It seems to me however, that it is a nice attempt and that in a couple >> months this micro4/3 may indeed be a very interesting market segment. > > The whole M4/3 system is still walks in baby-shoes. In 1975 when Pentax > created the Pentax K bayonett all of the older Pentax lenses (M42 Taks) > was useable with limitations... Did anyone complain? :) Pentax Forum. Dave > > .t > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
On 12-Sep-08, at 1:03 AM, Thibouille wrote: > > the quote at the end may stink IMO: > >> Lenses that are not compatible with the contrast AF function can be >> used with manual >> focusing. There are some limitations to other functions when the >> lenses other than LUMIX G >> VARIO 14-45mm/F3.5-F5.6 ASPH./MEGA O.I.S. and LUMIX G VARIO >> 45-200mm/F4.0-F5.6/MEGA O.I.S. > > What would be the purpose of using 4/3 lens on a 4/3 camera if AF > doesn't work (as for the intended market of the camera, I agree it > heavily depends on the use of it). According to the DPReview preview: • Four Thirds mount lenses via adapter (DMW-MA1PP) Autofocus only available with: - Olympus Zuiko 25 F2.8 'Pancake' - Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 - Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6 - Panasonic Leica D Summilux 25mm F1.4 ASPH - Panasonic Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-50mm F3.8-5.6 ASPH. Mega OIS - Panasonic Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-150mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH. Mega OIS So that includes the 3 most commonly owned Olympus lenses. Mike -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
Sandy, you switched the size numbers of G1 and E420 - G1 is the small one -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Thibouille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First things I note (those are preliminary notes, I think it should be > compared before defenitive decision, speaking for me of course): > > * it doesn't seem *that* small but it is very difficult to judge not > having a e.g. E420 next to it. One way to judge: it is 380 grams. Searching DP-review for SLRs under 500 g, I get only 5 -- E 520, 510, 420, 410, 400 ranging from 435 to 490 g. Dimensions G1130 x 91 x 53 mm E420 124 x 84 x 45 mm -- Sandy Harris, Quanzhou, Fujian, China -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
> It seems to me however, that it is a nice attempt and that in a couple > months this micro4/3 may indeed be a very interesting market segment. The whole M4/3 system is still walks in baby-shoes. In 1975 when Pentax created the Pentax K bayonett all of the older Pentax lenses (M42 Taks) was useable with limitations... Did anyone complain? :) .t -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
it's an interesting idea, and if it leads to a high quality rangefinder camera (perhaps something like the Contax G cameras) I'd be interested. But I'm not at all sure that their stated market really wants electronic viewfinders. Speaking for myself, my eyesight has deteriorated to the point where I need reading glasses. I cannot focus on the screen at the back of a camera unless I wear my reading glasses, but I'm not prepared to wear them when I'm out and about shooting - it is just not practical. I suspect an electronic viewfinder would be unusable for me and for much of their target market. It is also rather silly of them to have a viewfinder with a different format to the sensor! Bob > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Subash > Sent: 12 September 2008 07:52 > To: PDML > Subject: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1 > > since no one seems to have posted the link here... :-) > > http://www.dpreview.com/Previews/PanasonicG1/ > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
First things I note (those are preliminary notes, I think it should be compared before defenitive decision, speaking for me of course): * it doesn't seem *that* small but it is very difficult to judge not having a e.g. E420 next to it. the quote at the end may stink IMO: >Lenses that are not compatible with the contrast AF function can be used with >manual >focusing. There are some limitations to other functions when the lenses other >than LUMIX G >VARIO 14-45mm/F3.5-F5.6 ASPH./MEGA O.I.S. and LUMIX G VARIO >45-200mm/F4.0-F5.6/MEGA O.I.S. What would be the purpose of using 4/3 lens on a 4/3 camera if AF doesn't work (as for the intended market of the camera, I agree it heavily depends on the use of it). It seems to me however, that it is a nice attempt and that in a couple months this micro4/3 may indeed be a very interesting market segment. -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- Photo: K10D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... Thinkpad: X23+UB,X60+UB Programing: D7 user (trying out D2007) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
