Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Panasonic Micro Four Thirds

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 27, 2010, 2:55 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
mrmacmusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 274
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
Thanks. After I bought the camera, I found out about this strap lug problem (of course these things always happen after the fact, right?!?). Anyway, I THEN started doing some research on this problem and from what I gathered, the screw that holds the lug from the inside comes loose over time and eventually the lug comes out loose. One indication that the screw is getting loose is that the lug can wiggle. If the lug is tight (like it is on my G1), you should be OK.....
Don't worry about the lugs - from my research (and I'm sure you've read the same), it was only a problem on early production units, and has long since been sorted. Enjoy your 'bargain', and remember it will be interesting to hear your opinions here on how you think it compares to the G1

Last edited by mrmacmusic; Oct 27, 2010 at 2:56 PM. Reason: Typo!
mrmacmusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2010, 6:12 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

I sure hope so. I will certainly post my 2c worth as soon as I get my hands on it (it should arrive some time tomorrow).
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2010, 5:18 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
MartinSykes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 854
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dnas View Post
Micro 4/3 has exactly the same sized sensor as Olympus DSLRs, and it's only around 25% smaller than APS-C sensors used in Nikon/Canon/Pentax/Sony DSLRs.

It's the distance from lens to sensor that is different (around half) and as such, the lenses and the camera can be smaller.
According to wikipedia (which I admit is not necessarily the last word in accuracy at times), the 4/3 sensor is 225mm, the APS-C in Canon is 329mm and the other's APS-C is 370mm so the sensor in a 4/3 system is smaller. I'm not sure about the impact on image quality though as presumably the less complicated internal structure of an m4/3 like the G2 means there is less degredation from mirrors/lenses as the light travels to the sensor?

Can anyone comment on how does the IQ from the G2 for example compare to an entry-level APS-C camera at the same price?
__________________
AutoHDR - Free HDR software for Windows at http://www.autohdr.co.uk on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=...36045126467361
My Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/martinsykes
Panasonic DMC-FZ38, Sony ­α580
MartinSykes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2010, 6:41 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
mrmacmusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 274
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinSykes View Post
According to wikipedia (which I admit is not necessarily the last word in accuracy at times), the 4/3 sensor is 225mm, the APS-C in Canon is 329mm and the other's APS-C is 370mm so the sensor in a 4/3 system is smaller. I'm not sure about the impact on image quality though as presumably the less complicated internal structure of an m4/3 like the G2 means there is less degredation from mirrors/lenses as the light travels to the sensor?

Can anyone comment on how does the IQ from the G2 for example compare to an entry-level APS-C camera at the same price?
I can't personally comment on the G2, but I think it's worth pointing out that ANY camera is capable of producing great photographs if it is used properly. As a GH1 user, I would suggest that the image quality is very similar between m4/3 and entry-level DSLR the slightly smaller sensor has a slight impact on perceived depth-of-field, in that shooting f/2.8 on m4/3 won't give quite the same level of background blur as shooting f/2.8 on an APS-C camera. I guess going for m4/3 over APS-C is a bit like choosing APS-C over Full Frame.

I've heard it quoted elsewhere that DSLR's have the edge on speed. That may be the case, but my GH1 focuses pretty fast, and I'd wager at least as fast as my old Canon 40D image quality wise, I was surprised at first to notice when reviewing library shots, that the Lumix actually produced better photographs than my Canon did. Maybe that's down to me getting more experienced though......

Remembering something someone once told me, try the G2 out and compare it to alternative APS-C bodies in the same price range before you make a final decision how it feels is really important.

Hope that helps
mrmacmusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2010, 7:01 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
Clint501's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Suwanee, Ga
Posts: 2,511
Default

How does the image quality with the GH1 with the 14-140mm lens compare to the G2 with the 14-42 lens? I think if I got the G2 I'd eventually want a lens with more reach. From what little I've read the 14-140 lens seems to do well.
__________________





Have Fun - Be Nice - Don't Break Anything
Clint501 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2010, 7:18 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinSykes View Post
According to wikipedia (which I admit is not necessarily the last word in accuracy at times), the 4/3 sensor is 225mm, the APS-C in Canon is 329mm and the other's APS-C is 370mm so the sensor in a 4/3 system is smaller. I'm not sure about the impact on image quality though as presumably the less complicated internal structure of an m4/3 like the G2 means there is less degredation from mirrors/lenses as the light travels to the sensor?

Can anyone comment on how does the IQ from the G2 for example compare to an entry-level APS-C camera at the same price?
The details from wikipedia are wrong.

225mm is almost 9 inches. (one inch = 25.4mm) The correct diagonal dimension is 22.5mm.
The difference between an APS-C sensor and a 4/3 sensor, is less than the difference between a Full Frame sensor and an APS-C sensor.
dnas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2010, 7:21 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
mrmacmusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 274
Default

Clint501: The 14-140 lens is a real peach (IMHO)... having the 10x range makes it very versatile, and while I've heard folks say it's "slow" at f/4 to f/5.8, I'd argue that it compares favourably with other kit lenses, especially when you factor in the reach. It's pretty sharp too, even at the long end – at least my copy is.

Compared to the 14-42? No idea – I suspect image quality would be roughly the same, but you wouldn't have the convenience of the extra reach, and of course, for video work the 14-140 has the whole HD, silent-motor, stepless aperture thing going on.

Bottom line? It's a great lens
mrmacmusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2010, 7:38 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
MartinSykes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 854
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dnas View Post
The details from wikipedia are wrong.

225mm is almost 9 inches. (one inch = 25.4mm) The correct diagonal dimension is 22.5mm.
The difference between an APS-C sensor and a 4/3 sensor, is less than the difference between a Full Frame sensor and an APS-C sensor.
Sorry, 225 square mm (17.3*13). But it is smaller so does that mean IQ is worse or does the simpler internal structure balance that out?
__________________
AutoHDR - Free HDR software for Windows at http://www.autohdr.co.uk on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=...36045126467361
My Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/martinsykes
Panasonic DMC-FZ38, Sony ­α580
MartinSykes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2010, 8:36 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
mrmacmusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 274
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinSykes View Post
Sorry, 225 square mm (17.3*13). But it is smaller so does that mean IQ is worse or does the simpler internal structure balance that out?
I already mentioned the difference in background blur above.

The (slightly) smaller sensor and higher pixel density will (marginally) affect sensitivity too.

IMHO the removal of the mirror doesn't affect image quality – it just makes the body smaller
mrmacmusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2010, 9:36 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
Clint501's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Suwanee, Ga
Posts: 2,511
Default

LOL - if I remove my mirrors would that make my body smaller???

__________________





Have Fun - Be Nice - Don't Break Anything
Clint501 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:29 PM.