Panasonic G1 The first micro 4/3rds

[Grey Beard]

http://panasonic.net/pavc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/index.html

Check the initial specs of the new Lumix G1, it looks like the micro 4/3rds system cameras are a reality and I'll be standing in line

KGB

[CrackedButter]

It is smaller than my Olympus E420, luckily it's still the smallest 'DSLR' :p.

What is your reason for getting a G1 then?
I saw that it has a 12mp sensor and it does ISO 3200.

Also another thing of note is the new sensor, this is something Olympus can use for themselves as well in their future models. It's also a shame the lenses are not a bit quicker.

[bking1000]

No movie mode, no thanks. In looking for compact, carrying another device for the occasional movie doesn't cut it.

[ftaok]

To me, it looks like the micro 4/3rds system would be a good choice for people looking at bridge cameras ... especially if they're already invested in a 4/3rds SLR.

I'd rather go with a m4/3 over some of those bulky Fuji or Panny bridge units or even a Canon 100IS. The m4/3 would have much more flexibility and a bigger sensor. A Canon G9 would still be more compact, so you'd have to think about it between those two.

To me, if the price is right, it's a no brainer when choosing btwn the m4/3 and a 'bulky' bridge cam. But maybe after they get a decent movie mode on it ... I'd even take m-jpeg, but AVCHD would be nice.

[cube]

Nice, but deal killers:

- No sensor cover
- No movie mode

Although it will only reach 14mm equiv. in the foreseeable future, that could be forgiven for light travel.

[CrackedButter]

Nice, but deal killers:

- No sensor cover
- No movie mode

Although it will only reach 14mm equiv. in the foreseeable future, that could be forgiven for light travel.

This is version 1. I'm sure down the line they will have a movie mode. From what I can gather they have been conservative with the design of this camera, people were expecting something remarkably different to a camera with a SLR.

I think the biggest deal killer is the price.

[mrgreen4242]

OK dumb question... how is this better than any of the other SLRs? I mean, it's small, but so is a D40 and it's twice the price of the Nikon. It has live view, but is it, technically, a better camera than exisiting D40s?

I'm just confused by the micro 4/3 system I think. I assumed it would be to get SLR like image quality into smaller P&S and bridge cameras, but this looks like it's trying to compete with the D40 and small Canon SLRs?

[cube]

It's quite smaller than the E-420, which is the smallest DSLR to date. And the micro Four Thirds lenses are also smaller than Four Thirds.

It's a premium product.

The sensor is the same size, so it will compete better than Four Thirds against the other systems.

[CrackedButter]

OK dumb question... how is this better than any of the other SLRs? I mean, it's small, but so is a D40 and it's twice the price of the Nikon. It has live view, but is it, technically, a better camera than exisiting D40s?

I'm just confused by the micro 4/3 system I think. I assumed it would be to get SLR like image quality into smaller P&S and bridge cameras, but this looks like it's trying to compete with the D40 and small Canon SLRs?

The point of this is to get the quality and the ability of interchangable lenses into a small compact system. Add to the fact that it will be very quiet without the mirror slap. Personally I think they should have designed something that was closer in apparence to a rangefinder.

[lasuther]

OK dumb question... how is this better than any of the other SLRs? I mean, it's small, but so is a D40 and it's twice the price of the Nikon. It has live view, but is it, technically, a better camera than exisiting D40s?

I'm just confused by the micro 4/3 system I think. I assumed it would be to get SLR like image quality into smaller P&S and bridge cameras, but this looks like it's trying to compete with the D40 and small Canon SLRs?


I think this will have a lot of success with owners of Full Frame DSLRs who are looking for smaller cameras that have good quality. I don't think this camera is trying to replace a DSLR system. I think it will be a secondary system people buy for traveling and socal events where you don't want a huge FF camera.

It could also have success with people who are looking to get into DSLR but don't want to get something so big and complicated.

[ftaok]

OK dumb question... how is this better than any of the other SLRs? I mean, it's small, but so is a D40 and it's twice the price of the Nikon. It has live view, but is it, technically, a better camera than exisiting D40s?

where did you see pricing? I thought pricing was going to be released next month.

[mrgreen4242]

where did you see pricing? I thought pricing was going to be released next month.

I saw it on Engadget. It was in Yen, which they converted to dollars. $750 body only, $1200 with the "higher end" lens kits.

I still don't get it, I suppose, but I must be misjudging its size in relation to the existing small form factor SLRs.

[CrackedButter]

I saw it on Engadget. It was in Yen, which they converted to dollars. $750 body only, $1200 with the "higher end" lens kits.

I still don't get it, I suppose, but I must be misjudging its size in relation to the existing small form factor SLRs.

I think you are. But the other camera manufacturers have to innovate with something since the big camera market is basically owned by Canon and Nikon.

Think of it like this, Sigma brought out a compact with an SLR size sensor in order to innovate in the P&S market (the DP1), the camera is limited with its limited ISO and 1 focal length, but we can understand what they are doing here right? They are doing something different with P&S's. So m4/3rds comes along and they can tell Sigma in a roundabout way that they should do it their way.

Notice the price of the G1 is near the Sigma DP1, which would you choose?

Also, people on dpreview are comparing the G1 with the Canon G9, not with other SLR's like the Nikon D40.

[ftaok]

I saw it on Engadget. It was in Yen, which they converted to dollars. $750 body only, $1200 with the "higher end" lens kits.

I still don't get it, I suppose, but I must be misjudging its size in relation to the existing small form factor SLRs.

Yikes!!!!!

I wonder what the D40 (and other SLRs) cost in Japan. I don't suppose that the D40 costs $450 in Japan, do they?

ft

[Digital Skunk]

Nice, but needs to be smaller for me to consider it. If I have to grab all new lenses then I might as well stick with the Nikon system since I already have lenses for it.

Great option for those not invested in a interchangeable lens system, but for any shooter that has Canon Nikon Sony Olympus bodies it may not be ideal.

I'd love to have that body type in a smaller Canon G9 though, along with HD movie shooting, and RAW.

[Westside guy]

OK dumb question... how is this better than any of the other SLRs? I mean, it's small, but so is a D40 and it's twice the price of the Nikon. It has live view, but is it, technically, a better camera than exisiting D40s?

I'm just confused by the micro 4/3 system I think. I assumed it would be to get SLR like image quality into smaller P&S and bridge cameras, but this looks like it's trying to compete with the D40 and small Canon SLRs?

I don't think the direct price comparison works, any more than comparing the price and specs between a MacBook Air and some ginourmous Dell laptop do. With the micro 4/3 system, I'd think you're paying a premium for the engineering that went into it.

I suspect they're still trying to create and define their niche. The 4/3 system certainly has fans, but (in my opinion) never really got small and light enough to substantially differentiate themselves from the rest of the SLR pack. Micro 4/3 probably has a better chance at doing just that. The big question is: Will micro 4/3 bring in a new wave of fans, or will it just inhabit (and maybe cannibalize) the existing 4/3 market segment?

BTW I love how the main Panasonic page that's linked above still has some "404 not found" pages linked from it. Way to get the marketing together, guys.

[Abstract]

Nice, but deal killers:

- No sensor cover
- No movie mode


Not deal killers for me. ;) I've never used video on my point and shoot.




I think the biggest deal killer is the price.

Agreed.

They took away things from their DSLR and made it less complex. No need to implement things (i.e. the mirror) that must undergo repetitive physical stresses over years of use, and yet be within a few microns of its initial starting position each time. That's what a point and shoot is, so this is essentially a point and shoot with an interchangeable lens. The price shouldn't be so high. I'd understand a slight premium over a Nikon D40 or Olympus E-420, but they're just milking this right now.

[tony-in-japan]

With regards to readers’ concerns:

Sensor cover: doesn’t this G1 have the dust-buster from Olympus which is considered one of the most effective in the industry?

Movie mode: movie mode will come in a 2009 model along with their HD lenses.

Price: I think for a new breed of camera with, what seems, a lot of work and planning put into it, it is their prerogative to give it a premium price initially, especially when first released in Japan. Initial product releases in Japan are bound to be expensive, but I have heard they are still considering what prices to give it for the US release (probably cheaper due to the recession).

I think Panasonic are aiming squarely at the ‘premium’ digital compact consumer.

Also, I wonder about the naming of it... G1! Does that mean it is going to compete with the upcoming Canon G10? There will surely be some cross-over when customers are in a store asking for recommendations. I guess G1 means : Generation 1?

Lastly, someone said this about the m4/3rds which I found quite fitting:
Isn’t m4/3rds the FF of compact cameras?

[Mr. G4]

We have to wait to see what Olympus will come out with their version of the G1. Historically Panasonic always overpriced their camera comparing to the Olympus version. Also Panasonic-Leica lens are bigger then the Zuiko.

Here is a picture of the G1 with pancake lens

http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2008-09/12/20mmF17-L.jpg

[cube]

They have to get rid of the grip, too.

[Abstract]

G1 vs E-420 (http://img.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCG1/ZG1vsE420L.jpg)


Anyone not that impressed with the size of the G1? Numbers on paper don't mean anything to me, as it depends on where along the body they're measuring from. The main parts of the body that I can see appear to be nearly identical in terms of size.

It says in one part of the article HERE (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCG1/DMCG1A.HTM) that they could have made the G1 smaller, but they were afraid of making it too small, particularly for American hands.

So if there's a concern about making these cameras too small, then is the E-420 as small as camera enthusiasts need them to be? That, and this mofo is 2 times more expensive than the E-420. :confused:

[Westside guy]

That photo link didn't work for me, so I went to the article and found it. Wow, the cameras look pretty much the same to my eye. The only difference, really, is where the pentaprism/pentamirror is in the Olympus.

I'm perplexed regarding why they didn't go smaller - if they think it'd be "too small", what's the point in micro 4/3 again? :confused:

[Abstract]

They really missed the mark on this camera, didn't they.

And lots of FT lenses won't even AF on this new mFT camera. Hopefully Olympus' version can do it right......ALL of it. Yes, this means adding video for those who want it. That means AF using FT lenses, and this means making a camera smaller than the E-420 in a physically meaningful way rather than just "by the numbers". It has no mirror-box or prism. What are they doing with the extra space? You'd have enough space to allow users to put in another SD card if they want one, or a massive battery.

With the camera's smaller mount and size, you'd also expect fast zooms to be small in size too. Why are we still in f/3.5 to f/5.6 territory?


It just didn't hit any of the targets. It's "cute", but that's it. The only good thing about this camera is the LCD screen, which can be tilted and swivelled. Its 2x more expensive than an E-420 as well, which isn't great when you also consider how expensive the mFT lenses are.

[bking1000]

Somehow, the numbers seem off to me. Look at these pics of someone actually holding the G1. It looks tiny (unless that's some giant holding the camera). http://www.flickr.com/photos/audioblog/sets/72157607245255351/ This was found by someone on dpreview.

And, if this is the "conservative" size, imagine when they decide to shrink it still more.

[Phrasikleia]

Somehow, the numbers seem off to me. Look at these pics of someone actually holding the G1. It looks tiny (unless that's some giant holding the camera). http://www.flickr.com/photos/audioblog/sets/72157607245255351/ This was found by someone on dpreview.

And, if this is the "conservative" size, imagine when they decide to shrink it still more.

Yeah, that thing looks Lilliputian as it is. And consider that although it's roughly equivalent to an e-420 in size and weight, it packs in a real grip and a large swivel screen.

I'm shocked they didn't just go ahead and throw a movie mode in there to begin with. Sure, it's just a matter of time until they will, but that would have removed the last hurdle for a PnS user who is considering moving up to this camera.

[Padaung]

I think they should have designed something that was closer in apparence to a rangefinder.


I'm with you on that, a rangefinder in this format would be awesome, along with some lovely small, fast lenses. Hopefully the Panasonic/Leica arrangement will bring something along these lines.

If they don't try and cram too many pixels in (8 meg?), it should have pretty good high ISO capabilities too. I won't be holding my breath on that though, one feels the marketing department in all companies apart from Nikon has too much of a say in camera design for now.

If such a camera did come along I think that would be my dream travel camera!

[Westside guy]

I'm with you on that, a rangefinder in this format would be awesome, along with some lovely small, fast lenses. Hopefully the Panasonic/Leica arrangement will bring something along these lines.

Don't hold your breath. Leica's existing rangefinders are very expensive, and they're going to zealously protect their market. I can't see them putting out a product that could possibly cannibalize those sales.

Hmm, you know - anyone care to speculate on whether the existing Leica rangefinder line might have something to do with why the Panasonic G1 isn't smaller? Leica is part of the 4/3 group, aren't they?

[Mr. G4]

Leica is part of the 4/3 group, aren't they?

Well yes. Almost all the Panasonic camera, including DSLR, come with Leica lens and somehow there is no mention of Leica in the release of G1.

Leica is having a press conference this coming Monday, so we'll see what they are going to announce.

I think everyone is missing the point that the most important in the G1 release is not the size of the body but the size of the lens

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3223/2850604192_9f8e31ea3a.jpg

as this picture shown the size of the 42-150 lens that is 90-300 equivalent to 35mm and look how tiny that thing is.

[Mr. G4]

If they don't try and cram too many pixels in (8 meg?), it should have pretty good high ISO capabilities too.

It's the same size sensor as the Olympus E-3 or the Panasonic DMC-L10 and that's the beauty of the Micro 4/3rd compact-bridge size camera with DSLR image sensor.

[Mr. G4]

Yeah, that thing looks Lilliputian as it is. And consider that although it's roughly equivalent to an e-420 in size and weight, it packs in a real grip and a large swivel screen.

I'm shocked they didn't just go ahead and throw a movie mode in there to begin with. Sure, it's just a matter of time until they will, but that would have removed the last hurdle for a PnS user who is considering moving up to this camera.

It's coming and it's HD also (look at the mic on top)

http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2008-09/12/G-HD-L.jpg

http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2008-09/12/G1-086-L.jpg

[ftaok]

as this picture shown the size of the 42-150 lens that is 90-300 equivalent to 35mm and look how tiny that thing is.

That's actually the 14-45 lens. It still is pretty small, though.

That other one ... where did that one come from? They haven't even released the G1 and already there's another one with a real movie mode (AVCHD no less). Is it the same size as the G1?

This could be one of the coolest developments for photo/video enthusiasts.

[Abstract]

I don't think every Four-Thirds "member" is also necessarily a mFT member.


Remember, Four-Thirds is an open system, but only if Olympus likes you. ;) Leica may be a part of it, but manufacturers like Sigma may not be anymore (and maybe they don't want to be).

[Mr. G4]

That's actually the 14-45 lens. It still is pretty small, though.

That other one ... where did that one come from? They haven't even released the G1 and already there's another one with a real movie mode (AVCHD no less). Is it the same size as the G1?

This could be one of the coolest developments for photo/video enthusiasts.

oops, sorry you're right

Here is the link to the site (http://www.digitalcamera.jp/) just scroll down. There is a picture of the 45-200 as well :)

[ftaok]

I think this picture says it all. One of these mFT cameras would be much more desirable than those bulky bridge cameras.

comparision btwn G1 and Panny DMC (http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2008-09/12/G1-117-L.jpg)

[CrackedButter]

Don't hold your breath. Leica's existing rangefinders are very expensive, and they're going to zealously protect their market. I can't see them putting out a product that could possibly cannibalize those sales.

Hmm, you know - anyone care to speculate on whether the existing Leica rangefinder line might have something to do with why the Panasonic G1 isn't smaller? Leica is part of the 4/3 group, aren't they?

Leica has nothing to do with m4/3rds. They also don't own a patent on the design of the Rangefinder. People who know the difference will still buy Leica and everybody else who see's the potential in a cheaper rangefinder/SLR hybrid system will buy into it. I would buy an Olympus rangefinder but never would I buy a Leica unless I was very rich as its very expensive. You're talking $6000 just for the body which isn't even full frame.

Have you ever held a Leica M8? Though it is small, it weighs a ton and deliberately so, Leica have no interest in doing what m4/3rds is setting out to do.

[Padaung]

Leica has nothing to do with m4/3rds. They also don't own a patent on the design of the Rangefinder. People who know the difference will still buy Leica and everybody else who see's the potential in a cheaper rangefinder/SLR hybrid system will buy into it. I would buy an Olympus rangefinder but never would I buy a Leica unless I was very rich as its very expensive. You're talking $6000 just for the body which isn't even full frame.

Have you ever held a Leica M8? Though it is small, it weighs a ton and deliberately so, Leica have no interest in doing what m4/3rds is setting out to do.


It would be great if Olympus took lead on this. The old OM system was sublime, with fantastically sharp lenses. I own an old Leica CL, which is a kinda small (pocket) rangefinder. It was my travel camera for years, and I loved it to bits (I still have it, but it rarely gets used now). If something digital were to come along to replace it I'd be jumping over the moon with joy. The M8 and Epson R-D1 are just too big (and expensive).

I fear I'm just dreaming, but never mind, no harm in that...

[Westside guy]

Leica has nothing to do with m4/3rds. They also don't own a patent on the design of the Rangefinder. People who know the difference will still buy Leica and everybody else who see's the potential in a cheaper rangefinder/SLR hybrid system will buy into it.

Leica doesn't have to hold any patents - I wasn't even thinking along those lines. However as one of the members of the 4/3 alliance (and certainly being THE prestige name among the members) they'll carry a lot of weight, if they so desire. If they said "don't make this as small as one of our rangefinders, or we're out of the 4/3 alliance", Olympus and Panasonic would have to listen.

You can say "People who know the difference will still buy Leica", and there is some truth to that - at least with some folks. But I think there are also people with money that would see a rangefinder-sized m4/3 camera with Leica glass and say "hey, remind me why was I going to spend $6k for a Leica rangefinder?"

Anyway, that's all just idle speculation on my part, obviously. And if Olympus or Panasonic do come out with a rangefinder sized m4/3 camera, that'll certainly show that I'm wrong. But it just seems weird that the first m4/3 camera wasn't smaller.

BTW why would it matter if Leica is/isn't explicitly part of m4/3 rather than 4/3? The lenses are compatible either way, aren't they?

[CrackedButter]

Leica doesn't have to hold any patents - I wasn't even thinking along those lines. However as one of the members of the 4/3 alliance (and certainly being THE prestige name among the members) they'll carry a lot of weight, if they so desire. If they said "don't make this as small as one of our rangefinders, or we're out of the 4/3 alliance", Olympus and Panasonic would have to listen.

You can say "People who know the difference will still buy Leica", and there is some truth to that - at least with some folks. But I think there are also people with money that would see a rangefinder-sized m4/3 camera with Leica glass and say "hey, remind me why was I going to spend $6k for a Leica rangefinder?"

Anyway, that's all just idle speculation on my part, obviously. And if Olympus or Panasonic do come out with a rangefinder sized m4/3 camera, that'll certainly show that I'm wrong. But it just seems weird that the first m4/3 camera wasn't smaller.

BTW why would it matter if Leica is/isn't explicitly part of m4/3 rather than 4/3? The lenses are compatible either way, aren't they?

My point was that they can't do anything to protect their market, patents was the wrong word but you made it sound like they owned the market artificially. Anyway...

The lenses are compatible with an adapter, you can use the 4/3rds lens variant on a m4/3rd body but not the other way around. Besides, Panasonic call the shots since the Leica cameras under 4/3rds are just rebadged Panasonic cameras, they license their name and design of the lenses. Panasonic do the manufacturing. Leica definitely cater to a different market.

Panasonic have stated they could have gone smaller with the design but kept it familiar to new users.

[Mr. G4]

The lenses are compatible with an adapter, you can use the 4/3rds lens variant on a m4/3rd body but not the other way around.

There are doubt about that now...since not all 4/3rd lens can do contrast detection for the AF...if you want to use "legacy" lens it's only possible in manual. So we have to wait and see.

[CrackedButter]

There are doubt about that now...since not all 4/3rd lens can do contrast detection for the AF...if you want to use "legacy" lens it's only possible in manual. So we have to wait and see.

Yes, saying that, I've only seen one lens from 4/3rds attached to the G1 via the adapter. The lens was the Leica 25mm.

[Westside guy]

There are doubt about that now...since not all 4/3rd lens can do contrast detection for the AF...if you want to use "legacy" lens it's only possible in manual. So we have to wait and see.

I had to smile at the use of the word "legacy" in this context, given that the 4/3 system is all of a handful of years old. ;)

[neonart]

This is a unique product that will attract new users who consider DSLRs too big, but want better quality photos than a PnS. The only other cameras available that comes close is the E-420/410, but still this is smaller especially when you add the lens to the equation.

Having said all that, as a fan of the 4/3 system, I dont think this really matters all that much to true photo enthusiasts. Most non-4/3 users will already have an investment in lenses, and four thirds users will probably prefer an E-420 that needs no adapter if they seek a more portable camera.

I can imagine how silly one of these will look with the 14-50 f2.8 Leica lens given it's size!

On another note, the viefinder idea is pretty cool if it can convince the old skool folks. But again, this won't matter to a new user coming from the point and shoot world.

[ftaok]

This is a unique product that will attract new users who consider DSLRs too big, but want better quality photos than a PnS. The only other cameras available that comes close is the E-420/410, but still this is smaller especially when you add the lens to the equation.

Having said all that, as a fan of the 4/3 system, I dont think this really matters all that much to true photo enthusiasts. Most non-4/3 users will already have an investment in lenses, and four thirds users will probably prefer an E-420 that needs no adapter if they seek a more portable camera.

I respectfully disagree about current 4/3rds users (take my opinion with a grain of salt since I am not a 4/3rds user). I'm thinking that a portion of 4/3rds users that would like a smaller camera would consider a m4/3 model. I think that the AVCHD could be the key. There are many times that I would love to shoot photos and video at an event, but I have to pick and choose. Having a quality camera, like a m4/3, means that I don't have to choose.

Granted, if they add AVCHD to a regular 4/3rds SLR, this takes away from the attractiveness of the m4/3 system. I'm just hoping that Canon eventually adds an AVCHD mode to the Rebel line. I figure I have about 2 years before I start looking to upgrade from miniDV to AVHCD.

[Mr. G4]

I had to smile at the use of the word "legacy" in this context, given that the 4/3 system is all of a handful of years old. ;)

So painfully true;)

I can imagine how silly one of these will look with the 14-50 f2.8 Leica lens given it's size!

On another note, the viefinder idea is pretty cool if it can convince the old skool folks. But again, this won't matter to a new user coming from the point and shoot world.

Actually if you look closely there is a viewfinder except that there is no mirror to reflect the image but instead it's a small screen that you look into it.

How about this picture?:D

http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/PanasonicG1/Images/biglens-001.jpg (http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/PanasonicG1/Images/biglens.jpg)

[neonart]

So painfully true;)



Actually if you look closely there is a viewfinder except that there is no mirror to reflect the image but instead it's a small screen that you look into it.

How about this picture?:D

http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/PanasonicG1/Images/biglens-001.jpg (http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/PanasonicG1/Images/biglens.jpg)

It's the new viewfinder Im talking about. It's awesome new technology, but people who want to look through the actual lens may be put off by it.

It's the first time that type of viewfinder has ever been used in a consumer product. Panasonic has been using it in pro video cameras for some time.

[Westside guy]

It's the new viewfinder Im talking about. It's awesome new technology, but people who want to look through the actual lens may be put off by it.

It's the first time that type of viewfinder has ever been used in a consumer product. Panasonic has been using it in pro video cameras for some time.

I must be missing something - electronic viewfinders have been around for years in the "not quite SLR" segment of the market (I remember being put off by them way back in 2003, when I was trying to decide whether or not to get a digital SLR for the first time). Or are you referring to some other aspect of the viewfinder?

[cube]

It's a LCOS viewfinder. That's a first in a consumer product.

[Mr. G4]

I must be missing something - electronic viewfinders have been around for years in the "not quite SLR" segment of the market (I remember being put off by them way back in 2003, when I was trying to decide whether or not to get a digital SLR for the first time). Or are you referring to some other aspect of the viewfinder?

You must be confused viewfinder and liveview.

As you can see in this picture there is viewfinder and the lcd screen

http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2008-09/12/G1-098-L.jpg

As of today the true liveview is only available on the E-330 the first ever to have liveview and one of the latest Sony Alpha (don't remember which model). Other DSLR that have liveview are painfully slow.

[neonart]

Here is an article that explains the new viewfinder technology used in the G1.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCG1/DMCG1A.HTM

It's about 1/2 page down after "live view".

Live view is through the LCD, where this new viewfinder does the same but with newer, faster, higher resolution technology.


BTW, the DMC-L1 also incorporated true live view. The E-330 and L1 where based on the same internal platform.

[Westside guy]

You must be confused viewfinder and liveview.

No, if you look at what I quoted (from neonart's post), he said "viewfinder" and I said "viewfinder". I've shot with SLRs for 20 years, and I know what a viewfinder is. :p

Electronic viewfinders on cameras are not new. This may have some nifty new tech; but the idea has been around for years. Back (a year or two) before I owned a D70, I thought about buying an Olympus E-10 (or was it E-20?) - one of the selling points for the Olympus camera was that, unlike many of its contemporary competitors, it had a true SLR-style viewfinder. The competitors mostly relied on either electronic viewfinders or else P&S style "live view".

[Westside guy]

It's a LCOS viewfinder. That's a first in a consumer product.

Ah - thank you.

[Mr. G4]

No, if you look at what I quoted (from neonart's post), he said "viewfinder" and I said "viewfinder". I've shot with SLRs for 20 years, and I know what a viewfinder is. :p

Electronic viewfinders on cameras are not new. This may have some nifty new tech; but the idea has been around for years. Back (a year or two) before I owned a D70, I thought about buying an Olympus E-10 (or was it E-20?) - one of the selling points for the Olympus camera was that, unlike many of its contemporary competitors, it had a true SLR-style viewfinder. The competitors mostly relied on either electronic viewfinders or else P&S style "live view".

Actually even on the E-10 the viewfinder was optical and not electronic as this image shown

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse10/images/e10cutaway.gif
from DPReview (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse10/)

I think up until the G1, all DSLR viewfinder are optical.

[neonart]

No, if you look at what I quoted (from neonart's post), he said "viewfinder" and I said "viewfinder". I've shot with SLRs for 20 years, and I know what a viewfinder is. :p

Electronic viewfinders on cameras are not new. This may have some nifty new tech; but the idea has been around for years. Back (a year or two) before I owned a D70, I thought about buying an Olympus E-10 (or was it E-20?) - one of the selling points for the Olympus camera was that, unlike many of its contemporary competitors, it had a true SLR-style viewfinder. The competitors mostly relied on either electronic viewfinders or else P&S style "live view".

This is correct. My old Panasonic FZ-10 had one of those. I never used it. It was useless. Which is my I hope this new fancy thing works as well as they say it does.

BTW, that D700 rocks!

[Westside guy]

Actually even on the E-10 the viewfinder was optical and not electronic as this image shown.

You misread my post. :) Here it is again...

I thought about buying an Olympus E-10 (or was it E-20?) - one of the selling points for the Olympus camera was that, unlike many of its contemporary competitors, it had a true SLR-style viewfinder. The competitors mostly relied on either electronic viewfinders or else P&S style "live view".

I KNOW the E-10 had an optical viewfinder. The optical viewfinder was why I liked the E-10 as compared to the other options I was looking at.

[Westside guy]

This is correct. My old Panasonic FZ-10 had one of those. I never used it. It was useless. Which is my I hope this new fancy thing works as well as they say it does.

Well we've got, what, 7-8 years of electronic progress since then? I'd think this should be head and shoulders above that old electronic viewfinder you remember. Given the quality of "live view" on any current-generation cameras, I'd suspect the viewfinder technology should be quite satisfactory.

[Mr. G4]

You misread my post. :) Here it is again...



I KNOW the E-10 had an optical viewfinder. The optical viewfinder was why I liked the E-10 as compared to the other options I was looking at.

Well it doesn't matter, but the point is the G1 use an electronic viewfinder that no "DSLR" used before, even though by definition we can not call the G1 an DSLR. ;)